PDA

View Full Version : Impeach Bush



Rat Faced
06-14-2003, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@14 June 2003 - 21:52
Don't have time for more right now but I think the poll is going terrifically well considering this board's U. S. members are vastly outnumbered. :D

How about a similar poll for Jacques Chirac? :huh:
I'd vote yes for him too ;)

j2k4
06-16-2003, 02:33 AM
Originally posted by MagicNakor@15 June 2003 - 18:20
Something that checks your spelling... ;)

I tend to use my eyes in conjunction with my brain. :D

:ninja:
What he said. ;)

clocker
06-16-2003, 02:35 AM
Originally posted by MagicNakor@15 June 2003 - 17:20


I tend to use my eyes in conjunction with my brain. :D


I shud try that.

j2k4
06-16-2003, 02:40 AM
I've been told I have a spell-checker; don't know where it is or how to use it.

So far, so good-my Oxford's cover is barely legible through the dust. ;)

angellynn26
06-16-2003, 08:12 PM
I voted yes because he wasn't even elected. The whole election only served to show the world what a mockery our government is. How does democracy work when an ass like this is allowed to steal our highest position right in front of the people? It was done openly, and because of the damned... and I do mean damned to hell... Repubs in this country who wanted the jerk in office, it was allowed to happen. Fuq Bush. I pray everyday that come election time next year, the people will have seen the light and will push this dick out of an office he never even belonged in. If they don't, I hope someone either assassinates him OR that I can get out of this country before the rest of the world nukes us because of him!

J'Pol
06-16-2003, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by angellynn26@16 June 2003 - 21:12
If they don't, I hope someone either assassinates him
Do you genuinely hope that the man is murdered ?

angellynn26
06-16-2003, 09:12 PM
Originally posted by JPaul+16 June 2003 - 20:26--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JPaul @ 16 June 2003 - 20:26)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-angellynn26@16 June 2003 - 21:12
If they don&#39;t, I hope someone either assassinates him
Do you genuinely hope that the man is murdered ? [/b][/quote]
Yes, I know it&#39;s rather harsh. Not genuinely, but I do wish he would just disappear. I wouldn&#39;t want to see him become a martyr either. I just can&#39;t accept what happened. The election has been over for three years, but I am still in shock. I truly gave up on this country at that very moment. Since I have spent my life working toward a future in politics, I am a little more passionate about my disgust for him than your average person. I am completely unmotivated to complete my goal, which is rather depressing considering I&#39;ve never quit anything in my life. All I wish to do now is to stop loving my family so much, allowing me to leave this country. If it wasn&#39;t for them, I&#39;d already be gone.

mutterings
06-17-2003, 01:13 AM
:(

ShockAndAwe^i^
06-17-2003, 03:38 AM
I don&#39;t think it&#39;s fair that foreign nationals get to vote on wether our president should be impeached or not.
C&#39;mon... Saddam was either the dumbest dictator ever not opening the country up to inspections when he didn&#39;t have them or their very well hidden or a they&#39;ve been moved.
Simple as that&#33;

evilbagpuss
06-17-2003, 03:43 AM
I don&#39;t think it&#39;s fair that foreign nationals get to vote on wether our president should be impeached or not

hmm, some foreign nationals died in that conflict...

btw sorry to be pedantic but a &#39;wether&#39; is a castrated ram. Dont rely on the spell checker too much S+A :D

clocker
06-17-2003, 03:45 AM
I don&#39;t think that castrated rams should get to vote either.

nahan
06-17-2003, 03:57 AM
If Gore was found the winner of the vote, you would want to impeach him for the
having the war also.

clocker
06-17-2003, 04:00 AM
Nahan, you assume that Gore would have been as hideously inept at diplomacy as Bush. I think that many more nations would have come to the party if the invitations had been nicer.

echidna
06-17-2003, 04:05 AM
Originally posted by ShockAndAwe^i^@17 June 2003 - 13:38
I don&#39;t think it&#39;s fair that foreign nationals get to vote on wether our president should be impeached or not.
C&#39;mon... Saddam was either the dumbest dictator ever not opening the country up to inspections when he didn&#39;t have them or their very well hidden or a they&#39;ve been moved.
Simple as that&#33;
why do you find non americans voting in this meaningless poll is unfair, while you typify the USAs right to besiege and invade iraq presumably as fair?

here we&#39;re just talking sh*t while the use of JDAMS and cruise missiles and live ammunition really kills real people [none of whom seem to be saddam]

are you serious that it is fair for the USA to kill, but not fair for us to talk?

angellynn26
06-20-2003, 08:31 PM
http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_lavel...41403_bush.html (http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_lavello_041403_bush.html)

Everything in this article is verifiable... IF you have the patience to do the research... SO, I don&#39;t want to hear crap about how this guy doesn&#39;t know what he&#39;s talking about because anybody who takes the time can find these same truths themselves.

Should Bush be impeached? Without a doubt, that is the very least that he should have to suffer.

Why is it we condemn and demand a conviction for a blowjob and perjury, yet we applaud and congratulate treasonous acts by our highest official? How can we pretend to have the best gov&#39;t on the planet when we can&#39;t even live up to the standards we expect from the rest of the democratized world? We are losing every moral leg we ever had to stand on.

Rat Faced
06-20-2003, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by ShockAndAwe^i^@17 June 2003 - 03:38
I don&#39;t think it&#39;s fair that foreign nationals get to vote on wether our president should be impeached or not.
C&#39;mon... Saddam was either the dumbest dictator ever not opening the country up to inspections when he didn&#39;t have them or their very well hidden or a they&#39;ve been moved.
Simple as that&#33;
I agree.

Lets turn the clock back a bit and decide that the USA hasnt got the vote on the Iraqi leadership either, after all ShockAndAwe just told us its not fair for Foreign Nationals to get the vote in a countries politics.




Or is that only one way?

Rat Faced
06-20-2003, 08:59 PM
He forgot to mention that the only reason George Bush Snr wasnt charged in 1942 was the fact that he bacame a Pilot in the Forces (He was at college at the time, but already had executive function in his daddies companies i believe)

But never mind that...Infested Cats will love that story, if i know him (But I bet he already knows it :P)


Bet ShockAndAwe doesnt though....and yes, i know he does not support "Bush", but is a "conservative"


I love a fight when im not involved...I do hope they respond ;)

ToraBoraDweller
07-04-2003, 10:28 PM
Yes ,this man makes a farce out of his office.
He must still live in the 19th century when politics consisted of gunboat-diplomacy
and the motto &#39;divide and rule&#39;.
With the current election-system and the monopoly of the 2 major parties I see
no good alternatives in the near future.

I&#39;m not anti-american but US-citizens should not unconditionally be so patriotic and
therefore chauvinistic.

Neil__
07-06-2003, 07:01 PM
Absoulutely
If this was Star Trek then Dr McCoy would have declaired him unfit for command.

I don&#39;t know the source for the quote will get it if I can but it is someone who worked with him as president.

"George Bush has got a radar
and if it&#39;s on his radar it&#39;s ON his radar
BUT if it ISN&#39;T on his radar it ISN&#39;T ON HIS RADAR"

thats a REALY sacrey thing to have attributed to any world leader but with Bush you know it&#39;s right.

And some F****** hero he is, as soon as the september attack started he scarpered into his hole and only came out when the shit had stopped

Bloody COWARD.

Yes Impeach him he is a missguided meglomaniac with delusions of grandeur.

Neil.

hypoluxa3k
07-07-2003, 09:45 AM
this post should have been titled:

Lynch Bush

denis123
07-07-2003, 06:48 PM
I am foreign. I would like to say this and I have not voted.... yet.

I believe it&#39;s to early to decide. We do know he(Sadam) did have them and we know where he bought them from. We also know that he used them. I saw the foto&#39;s of the villagers holding their babys in their arms, lying dead on the ground.

Time will tell the truth about WMD, I am patient. So I believe we shall all have to wait and see.

Bye the way if the USA had wanted to they could easily have planted them. They have not done so....yet( edit)

Lamsey
07-07-2003, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by denis123@7 July 2003 - 19:48
They have not done so.
yet...

Rat Faced
07-07-2003, 07:41 PM
yet....

Lamsey
07-07-2003, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@7 July 2003 - 20:41
yet....
There&#39;s an echo in here&#33;

j2k4
07-08-2003, 04:45 AM
Originally posted by Lamsey+7 July 2003 - 14:43--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lamsey &#064; 7 July 2003 - 14:43)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@7 July 2003 - 20:41
yet....
There&#39;s an echo in here&#33;[/b][/quote]
Cynical bastards..bastards...bastards...

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

theprisoner
07-08-2003, 10:02 PM
hmmm.. well it seems that america wants to impeach every president.

Neil__
07-09-2003, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by theprisoner@8 July 2003 - 23:02
hmmm.. well it seems that america wants to impeach every president.



And why not it is their right abd they usually have a case.

Neil

Neil__
07-09-2003, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by denis123@7 July 2003 - 19:48
I am foreign. I would like to say this and I have not voted.... yet.

I believe it&#39;s to early to decide. We do know he(Sadam) did have them and we know where he bought them from. We also know that he used them. I saw the foto&#39;s of the villagers holding their babys in their arms, lying dead on the ground.

Time will tell the truth about WMD, I am patient. So I believe we shall all have to wait and see.

Bye the way if the USA had wanted to they could easily have planted them. They have not done so....yet( edit)



And whose nuclear or biological weapons would they have planted
other countries anin&#39;t going to let themselves get framed with supplying weapons to Sadam and I&#39;m bloody sure America isn&#39;t going to plant it&#39;s own.

What Sadam managed to do under America, Britain and the U.N.&#39;s nose is remove all evidence of attempted or actual production and now bush & Blair are stuck with the baby
At least the U.N. didn&#39;t get sucked in too far.


Neil.

clocker
07-09-2003, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by Neil__@9 July 2003 - 06:02


What Sadam managed to do under America, Britain and the U.N.&#39;s nose is remove all evidence of attempted or actual production and now bush & Blair are stuck with the baby
At least the U.N. didn&#39;t get sucked in too far.



I&#39;m confused about the point here, Neil.

The first sentence seems to indicate that you believe that Iraq did possess WMD ( or at least the programs to develope same).

What didn&#39;t the UN get sucked into?

Neil__
07-09-2003, 01:07 PM
yes I have no doubt that Sadam was developing some sort of WMD even though nuclear was beyond him.
well now it looks to me that Sadam conned America, Britain and the U.N. into believing it still had the means or at least the research for production of WMD
How he managed to get rid of all evidence is amazing. they have found it in the past

and the haven&#39;t found anything so Bush and Blair forged evidence and got stuck into a highly doubious "under world law if not morally" war that they are in real shit trying to explain
and the U.N. kept out.

And has to explain nothing.

Neil.

Sorry about thee edits

j2k4
07-09-2003, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by Neil__@9 July 2003 - 08:07
yes I have no doubt that Sadam was developing some sort of WMD even though nuclear was beyond him.
well now it looks to me that Sadam conned America, Britain and the U.N. into believing it still had the means or at least the research for production of WMD
and the haven&#39;t found anything so Bush and Blair forged evidence and got stuck into a highly doubious "under world law if not morally" war that they are in real shit trying to explain
and the U.N. kept out.

And has to explain nothing.

Neil.
So then-

Why didn&#39;t Saddam allow the U.N. inspectors full, unfettered access, Neil?

For what possible reason would he subliminate his ego and sacrifice his rule?

Even for a psychopath like Saddam, this makes no sense.

This whole argument has this peculiar circularity......... :huh:

Neil__
07-09-2003, 01:20 PM
Sadam had no choice he knew America was coming to get him soon.
it&#39;s a last little revenge fo Sadam right at the end.
I bet he&#39;s pissing himself over the shit bush is in.
Also it does give a case for illegal invasion

Did America and Britain have the right ot invade?
Was Sadam toppled illegally?
can he demand his country back?
is this why America is so keen to see him dead?
How would the world respond if Sadam has a case and he want&#39;s to be reinstated?

Neil.

j2k4
07-09-2003, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by Neil__@9 July 2003 - 08:20
Sadam had no choice he knew America was coming to get him soon.
it&#39;s a last little revenge fo Sadam right at the end.
I bet he&#39;s pissing himself over the shit bush is in.
Also it does give a case for illegal invasion

Did America and Britain have the right ot invade?
Was Sadam toppled illegally?
can he demand his country back?
is this why America is so keen to see him dead?
How would the world respond if Sadam has a case and he want&#39;s to be reinstated?

Neil.
Do you mean to say Saddam orchestrated the destruction of all his lovely palaces so that he could rely on the ICC and the U.N. to restore him to his proper place in Iraq?

Sounds a bit of a stretch, to me....

I&#39;m sure if Saddam is "pissing himself" it is for entirely different reasons.

Neil__
07-09-2003, 02:27 PM
Remember America was going to invade Iraq and depose Sadam come what may.
All I know is the evidence went somewhere and he&#39;s the only man who could have achieved that.
Do I think Sadam would have the nerve to ask for Iraq back if Bush and Blaire dont prove the war was justified?
Hell yes.
I wouldn&#39;t be supprised if he had the bare face cheek to ask the U.N. for help.

Will he get his way?
Hell no.

Will he stay alive long enough for the case against the allies to come in in his faviour?

Maybe.

But if he&#39;s dead none of the above matters.
Put it this way WE won&#39;t allow him to be taken ALIVE.

Neil.

j2k4
07-09-2003, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by Neil__@9 July 2003 - 09:27
Will he stay alive long enough for the case against the allies to come in in his faviour?


You seem to think this is somehow inevitable.

It is still early days.......

Neil__
07-09-2003, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by j2k4+9 July 2003 - 15:31--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 &#064; 9 July 2003 - 15:31)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Neil__@9 July 2003 - 09:27
Will he stay alive long enough for the case against the allies to come in in his faviour?

Maybe.


You seem to think this is somehow inevitable.

It is still early days....... [/b][/quote]



I did say Maybe.

But if he&#39;s dead he can&#39;t ask however the outcome
I also think that if the allies had evidence then they would have to show it

Neil

clintonesque
07-09-2003, 02:37 PM
I hope they get him soon.
I think they will.
as for Bush, impeachment isn&#39;t even an issue whorthy of discussion.
What misconduct?

j2k4
07-09-2003, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by Neil__+9 July 2003 - 09:35--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Neil__ @ 9 July 2003 - 09:35)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by j2k4@9 July 2003 - 15:31
<!--QuoteBegin-Neil__@9 July 2003 - 09:27
Will he stay alive long enough for the case against the allies to come in in his faviour?

Maybe.


You seem to think this is somehow inevitable.

It is still early days.......



I did say Maybe. [/b][/quote]
Yes, you did.

Sorry.

Neil__
07-09-2003, 02:39 PM
sorry misread your post have answered above

It&#39;s not looking good for them at the moment and major things will have to come to light.

j2k4
07-09-2003, 03:02 PM
It seems the vote (remember the vote?) is swinging, albeit veeery slowly, in a new direction; Dubya has broken the 60% barrier going the other way-this is a major development in an international forum where everyone hates us. :)

ilw
07-09-2003, 03:09 PM
I voted no. Didn&#39;t totally agree with the war and am still a bit confused about what the main reason for going in was, but haven&#39;t seen anything that comes even close to being a reason for indictment.


an international forum where everyone hates us. :)
feeling unappreciated j2k4? I don&#39;t dislike americans, but this is pretty much the only place i get to talk to any of them. I&#39;m british living in Switzerland so I get lots of oppurtunity to talk to swiss, german, british, irish, polish, hungarian, greek etc people, but I don&#39;t really know any americans and i like to hear their views as well. :)

Neil__
07-09-2003, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@9 July 2003 - 16:02
It seems the vote (remember the vote?) is swinging, albeit veeery slowly, in a new direction; Dubya has broken the 60% barrier going the other way-this is a major development in an international forum where everyone hates us. :)



Good News.
but I think you miss the point.
if people do hate you Americans
It isn&#39;t personal it just by association.

If that is the case then the "hate" will deminish with bush&#39;s popularity
I look at it like this.
The more you see Bush for what he is the better we get on.
we&#39;ve already seen through blair

Other countries may need an appology for the Bushisms
but that&#39;s for him to take the responsibility.

so why does the "average joe" take the shit

ToraBoraDweller
07-14-2003, 07:35 PM
Originally posted by clintonesque@9 July 2003 - 15:37
I hope they get him soon.
I think they will.
as for Bush, impeachment isn&#39;t even an issue whorthy of discussion.
What misconduct?
Hmm... stupidity in itself is not a crime ,however the following issues are:
misrepresentation of facts;stating that &#39;those who are not working with us are against us&#39;;nepotism (oil-industrybuddies) ,financial misconduct (insurance companies although it must be said that he smelled a rat in the early stages and got out) and last but not least electionfraude (by proxy of his brother and cronies).










(Is there a politician with clean hands ?...maybe a contradiction in terms.)

j2k4
07-15-2003, 03:19 AM
Originally posted by ToraBoraDweller+14 July 2003 - 14:35--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ToraBoraDweller @ 14 July 2003 - 14:35)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-clintonesque@9 July 2003 - 15:37
I hope they get him soon.
I think they will.
as for Bush, impeachment isn&#39;t even an issue whorthy of discussion.
What&nbsp; misconduct?
Hmm... stupidity in itself is not a crime ,however the following issues are:
misrepresentation of facts;stating that &#39;those who are not working with us are against us&#39;;nepotism (oil-industrybuddies) ,financial misconduct (insurance companies although it must be said that he smelled a rat in the early stages and got out) and last but not least electionfraude (by proxy of his brother and cronies).










(Is there a politician with clean hands ?...maybe a contradiction in terms.) [/b][/quote]
ToraBoraDweller-

You don&#39;t know what you&#39;re talking about, so you choose to parrot the Democratic party line, even though you&#39;re not a U.S. citizen.

How nice it must be to select an opinion from the "opinion tree" and throw it in any direction so haphazardly.

Since I have naught but to conclude you are mis/mal-informed, instead of putting myself out in order to relieve you of your ignorance, why don&#39;t you just tot up a point-by-point evidentiary piece to back up your claims?

Please, I can&#39;t wait to shoot it to pieces.

Unless you&#39;d rather just sound a retreat and couch your post as an "opinion only" piece?

MagicNakor
07-15-2003, 09:13 AM
Originally posted by j2k4@15 July 2003 - 04:19
...How nice it must be to select an opinion from the "opinion tree" and throw it in any direction so haphazardly...
There&#39;s an opinion tree now? Excellent.

:ninja:

j2k4
07-15-2003, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by MagicNakor+15 July 2003 - 04:13--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MagicNakor @ 15 July 2003 - 04:13)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@15 July 2003 - 04:19
...How nice it must be to select an opinion from the "opinion tree" and throw it in any direction so haphazardly...
There&#39;s an opinion tree now? Excellent.

:ninja: [/b][/quote]
Yes, MN.

The trees are grown by American liberals and fertilized with their rhetorical bullshit.

New opinions gestate at the rate of approximately 5 every 1.476 nanoseconds, so there&#39;re many to choose from.

Ingestion of the tree&#39;s fruit causes intellectual indigestion, but the fruit also contains trace amounts of an unknown substance with antacid qualities to counteract this.

This "unknown substance" does nothing, however, to stem the accompanying, and peculiarly liberal affliction of verbal flatulence.

ToraBoraDweller
07-15-2003, 07:50 PM
Originally posted by j2k4+15 July 2003 - 04:19--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 15 July 2003 - 04:19)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by ToraBoraDweller@14 July 2003 - 14:35
<!--QuoteBegin-clintonesque@9 July 2003 - 15:37
I hope they get him soon.
I think they will.
as for Bush, impeachment isn&#39;t even an issue whorthy of discussion.
What misconduct?
Hmm... stupidity in itself is not a crime ,however the following issues are:
misrepresentation of facts;stating that &#39;those who are not working with us are against us&#39;;nepotism (oil-industrybuddies) ,financial misconduct (insurance companies although it must be said that he smelled a rat in the early stages and got out) and last but not least electionfraude (by proxy of his brother and cronies).










(Is there a politician with clean hands ?...maybe a contradiction in terms.)
ToraBoraDweller-

You don&#39;t know what you&#39;re talking about, so you choose to parrot the Democratic party line, even though you&#39;re not a U.S. citizen.

How nice it must be to select an opinion from the "opinion tree" and throw it in any direction so haphazardly.

Since I have naught but to conclude you are mis/mal-informed, instead of putting myself out in order to relieve you of your ignorance, why don&#39;t you just tot up a point-by-point evidentiary piece to back up your claims?

Please, I can&#39;t wait to shoot it to pieces.

Unless you&#39;d rather just sound a retreat and couch your post as an "opinion only" piece? [/b][/quote]
I do not endorse the democratic party or whatever party.
It&#39;s a fact that Bush has major interests in the oil-industry and is involved
through lobbyists in the weaponindustry (I think the name was :the Carlyle group)
as was and still is his father.
The mere fact that a president with such powers of office makes his way to that office by very considerable support of lobbying-groups (campaignfunds) is very
worrying (that&#39;s why I used the term nepotism for 1 reason).

As to my claim of electionfraude I think I can go a lot further than the &#39;Democratic party line&#39; :Bush (and the democratic party) unwillingly exposed the whole electionprocess as a farce ;the whole world had a big laugh.
The hangingpoint was the irregularities in the state of Florida ,governed by his brother (are they still searching for missing ballots and votingboxes ?)

Considering what I said about the insurance-companies :I must correct myself : it was a Savings&Loan-bank ,exact name escapes me now but it was even called a ....something-gate.

Have to stress again that I&#39;m not for any party : both disqualify and the system is to blame :financial interests on all levels plays too big a part (further limitation of campaignfunding would be a small start).
It&#39;s also worrying that the world is run by economists who probably all hold the same view (and had the same schooling) on &#39;free enterprise&#39; and a &#39;global market&#39;.

MagicNakor
07-16-2003, 12:07 AM
Originally posted by j2k4+15 July 2003 - 13:16--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 15 July 2003 - 13:16)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by MagicNakor@15 July 2003 - 04:13
<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@15 July 2003 - 04:19
...How nice it must be to select an opinion from the "opinion tree" and throw it in any direction so haphazardly...
There&#39;s an opinion tree now? Excellent.

:ninja:
Yes, MN.

The trees are grown by American liberals and fertilized with their rhetorical bullshit.

New opinions gestate at the rate of approximately 5 every 1.476 nanoseconds, so there&#39;re many to choose from.

Ingestion of the tree&#39;s fruit causes intellectual indigestion, but the fruit also contains trace amounts of an unknown substance with antacid qualities to counteract this.

This "unknown substance" does nothing, however, to stem the accompanying, and peculiarly liberal affliction of verbal flatulence. [/b][/quote]
I&#39;d imagine that there are conservative versions of this tree too; I&#39;ve certainly seen those "symptoms" on the other side of the scale around here. ;)

:ninja:

clocker
07-16-2003, 04:35 AM
Originally posted by j2k4@15 July 2003 - 06:16


The trees are grown by American liberals and fertilized with their rhetorical bullshit.


This is so true.

Democrats are fond of rhetorical bushwa.

Republicans prefer to simply lie.

j2k4
07-16-2003, 05:08 AM
Originally posted by ToraBoraDweller@15 July 2003 - 14:50
I do not endorse the democratic party or whatever party.
It&#39;s a fact that Bush has major interests in the oil-industry and is involved
through lobbyists in the weaponindustry (I think the name was :the Carlyle group)
as was and still is his father.
The mere fact that a president with such powers of office makes his way to that office by very considerable support of lobbying-groups (campaignfunds) is very
worrying (that&#39;s why I used the term nepotism for 1 reason).

As to my claim of electionfraude I think I can go a lot further than the &#39;Democratic party line&#39; :Bush (and the democratic party) unwillingly exposed the whole electionprocess as a farce ;the whole world had a big laugh.
The hangingpoint was the irregularities in the state of Florida ,governed by his brother (are they still searching for missing ballots and votingboxes ?)

Considering what I said about the insurance-companies :I must correct myself : it was a Savings&Loan-bank ,exact name escapes me now but it was even called a ....something-gate.

Have to stress again that I&#39;m not for any party : both disqualify and the system is to blame :financial interests on all levels plays too big a part (further limitation of campaignfunding would be a small start).
It&#39;s also worrying that the world is run by economists who probably all hold the same view (and had the same schooling) on &#39;free enterprise&#39; and a &#39;global market&#39;.
I do not endorse the democratic party or whatever party.

Maybe not, but your views, and theirs, are perfectly aligned.

It&#39;s a fact that Bush has major interests in the oil-industry and is involved
through lobbyists in the weaponindustry (I think the name was :the Carlyle group)
as was and still is his father.

Try to find a politician without connections to big business; lobbyists likewise-there is no such thing as an "unlobbied" politician. Bush is unexceptional in this regard.

The mere fact that a president with such powers of office makes his way to that office by very considerable support of lobbying-groups (campaignfunds) is very
worrying (that&#39;s why I used the term nepotism for 1 reason).

See above. I guess the charge of nepotism is to be expected, but I think for it to stick, you would have to somehow prove G.H.W. Bush wrangled the office of President for Dubya-if this were so, I think our liberal press would have sniffed it out.

As to my claim of electionfraude I think I can go a lot further than the &#39;Democratic party line&#39; :Bush (and the democratic party) unwillingly exposed the whole electionprocess as a farce ;the whole world had a big laugh.

Here I will quote my own post from a while back, as I don&#39;t want to go through this again:) Dubya WON the election on the pure vote count-perhaps you, like many others who are genetically anti-Bush, aren&#39;t aware that the &#39;count&#39; DID go on, but with no legal bearing. It was completed (and informally "certified") by a team of Liberal/ Democrat operatives about 8 months after the fact; they concluded (albeit on page "20" in most newspapers; I read it in probably 5 big-city papers, also in USA Today), that Bush even extended his lead, and after counting the absentee/military vote, extended his lead even further. This is FACT. As far as having a laugh, feel free-the joke is on you.


The hangingpoint was the irregularities in the state of Florida ,governed by his brother (are they still searching for missing ballots and votingboxes ?)

You are mis-informed; there are no missing ballots or "voting boxes".

Considering what I said about the insurance-companies :I must correct myself : it was a Savings&Loan-bank ,exact name escapes me now but it was even called a ....something-gate.

This I will ignore on account of vagueness, it probably escapes you for good reason.

Have to stress again that I&#39;m not for any party : both disqualify and the system is to blame :financial interests on all levels plays too big a part (further limitation of campaignfunding would be a small start).

I agree, but these are generic problems inherent in the American election/campaign process, and are certainly not exclusive to Bush.

It&#39;s also worrying that the world is run by economists who probably all hold the same view (and had the same schooling) on &#39;free enterprise&#39; and a &#39;global market&#39;.

As they say, &#39;That&#39;s the way of the world&#39;; neither is this problem attributable to Bush.

j2k4
07-16-2003, 05:11 AM
Originally posted by clocker@15 July 2003 - 23:35
Republicans prefer to simply lie.
No, they do not "simply lie".

They have elevated it to an art form. ;)

Rat Faced
07-16-2003, 08:17 AM
Here I will quote my own post from a while back, as I don&#39;t want to go through this again:) Dubya WON the election on the pure vote count-perhaps you, like many others who are genetically anti-Bush, aren&#39;t aware that the &#39;count&#39; DID go on, but with no legal bearing. It was completed (and informally "certified") by a team of Liberal/ Democrat operatives about 8 months after the fact; they concluded (albeit on page "20" in most newspapers; I read it in probably 5 big-city papers, also in USA Today), that Bush even extended his lead, and after counting the absentee/military vote, extended his lead even further. This is FACT. As far as having a laugh, feel free-the joke is on you.



Correct me if im wrong, but wasnt there also the small matter of thousands of people from "minorities" that somehow got missed off the electrol role (in Florida) and so couldnt vote?

And arent these people mostly Democrat voters?

I also remember, at the back of my mind, something to do with the ballot paper being designed so that some of the Democrats actually voted for someone else and vise versa...(although obviously as the someone else was a minor Party this wouldnt cancel itself out)

Maybe we should ask RPerry to come into this room and ask for a local perspective from Florida....



Irrespective of the "facts", and everyone will have different opinions...Bush was "elected" BEFORE the vote had been counted, by a Republican Court....and yes we did have a good laugh at the farce over there.

In any other democracy in the world, the Florida election would have been re-run...pure and simple, because it LOOKED fixed.

The last thing a Democratic country that espouts Freedom etc wants is an election that is not clearly fair....it undermines the whole system, as can be seen re: comments about putting a Democracy in Iraq a few months ago..USA, in the eyes of many in the world ISNT a Democracy at the moment.

RPerry
07-16-2003, 10:18 AM
As per request from Rat_Faced, I will make a quick stop here, although its not one of my favorite places to go, simply because of the bitter hatred of each others countries thats seems to float in these topics. SO before beggining anything, let me state this, I belong to the first generation of my family, that did not serve during a conflict. However, I did serve in the Navy for a short time, mistakes and bad choices changed my path. I have a love for all people, no matter from which country they are from, or what color their skin is. And, had I been active in the military, I surely would have fought, because it what my ancestors and alot of your ancestors did to preserve democracy as we know it.
There are alot of mistakes made by governments, some intentional, some not. To throw them back and forth at each other, just to "one -up" each other is pointless, we cannot go back and change any decision that was made. Nor should we shoot any of our fellow board memebers for them, to my knowledge, we have no heads of state present :P
Like alot of you I have my own beliefs. For begginers, I can&#39;t remember one conflict yet where several million Americans didn&#39;t want to get involved. In fact, World War II was one of them. Most American felt that it wasn&#39;t our war, sadly, December 7, 1941 changed that. For for quite some time, its been debated whether or not that attack could have been prevented. Maybe we&#39;ll never know. Here is what I do know. What in the hell were the aircraft carriers (the key to victory at that time) doing out at sea, without their escort battleships? see what consisted of a carrier battle group in the 1940&#39;s, and ask yourself the same question. Possibilty due to technology of the time, that the size of a battleship could be mistaken for a carrier? In my mind, what happened was what was supposed to happen, it enraged all americans, and unified them in their quest for revenge.
Do I think its possible that the government has lied to us about iraq having wmd&#39;s? it wouldn&#39;t be the first time ;) I mean, we know who shot J.R. (Dallas) but we don&#39;t know who shot Kennedy? (also shot in Dallas, TX :P )
Reagardless of what kind of debate goes on here, not many will admit to changing their views.
As far as the Florida elections go, I agree whole -heartedly that they should have be re-run. My Father, told me the minute Jeb Bush ws elected governor, why he was there, simply to get his brother elected president. Funny, how it turned out, don&#39;t think my father envisioned anything like what happened. Regardless of whatever scandals came about, there was a bigger one involved. The decision to send a small cuban boy home with his father from Miami to Cuba, swung a notable democratic area (Miami, large cuban population) against the party. would the few hundreds of votes mattered then? who the hell knows.....
All I know is that nobody knows the reasons for everything, and we must all live our lives doing what we think is right. Do I think America and Britain should have invaded Iraq? you bet your ass ;) that bastard should have been taken out in 1991. For whatever was found or not found, I still have to wonder why Iraqi soldiers carried gas masks. Why was America so sure they had them? who the hell you think gave then some of that shit? Do I think Bush Should be impeached? no, he did what he thought was right for America. Maybe one day we&#39;ll know exactly what that was.

j2k4
07-16-2003, 05:01 PM
Rat-

Please excuse my slipshod use of the board&#39;s capability in replying:


Correct me if im wrong, but wasnt there also the small matter of thousands of people from "minorities" that somehow got missed off the electrol role (in Florida) and so couldnt vote?

In all instances I am aware of, these were minorities who were bussed to the polling places after the polls had officially closed strictly for the purpose of saying to any official media, "They won&#39;t let me vote&#33;" It was proven that most of them had already voted and then, having nothing better to do, volunteered to be "dupes for Dems" on exchange for food and refreshment. Some even appeared on camera at different times and different polling places.

And arent these people mostly Democrat voters?

I also remember, at the back of my mind, something to do with the ballot paper being designed so that some of the Democrats actually voted for someone else and vise versa...(although obviously as the someone else was a minor Party this wouldnt cancel itself out)

This was a story concocted by the excuse-makers; Rat, if you had one of these ballots in your hands, you&#39;d know what I mean.

We also had a more "normal" incident of voting fraud: The national media, as you know, loves to jump the gun with their "projected" winners.
If a Bush voter in the Florida panhandle (different time zone) hears "Gore" projected as the winner an hour before his polling place closes, he is less likely to make the effort to cast his vote, you see? This, however, is passed over as being un-news-worthy.

The last thing a Democratic country that espouts Freedom etc wants is an election that is not clearly fair....it undermines the whole system, as can be seen re: comments about putting a Democracy in Iraq a few months ago..USA, in the eyes of many in the world ISNT a Democracy at the moment.

I agree, but the Dems didn&#39;t want to hash this one out again, either, believe me.

Edit: spelling-j2

ToraBoraDweller
07-16-2003, 07:44 PM
You kept your promise j2k4 :)
But I&#39;m not finished yet:


I do not endorse the democratic party or whatever party.
.

Maybe not, but your views, and theirs, are perfectly aligned
Not perfectly :in many aspects I find the democrats just as guilty as the republicans and while they had their majority and a president they did not live up to their promises espescially in the areas of electoral and governmental reform,main focus was (as always and mainly) on economy.


It&#39;s a fact that Bush has major interests in the oil-industry and is involved
through lobbyists in the weaponindustry (I think the name was :the Carlyle group)
as was and still is his father.


Try to find a politician without connections to big business; lobbyists likewise-there is no such thing as an "unlobbied" politician. Bush is unexceptional in this regard.

So true &#33;&#33; :( But thereby said it&#39;s not something to condone
as it will lead to corruption or in public view the appearance of corruption


The mere fact that a president with such powers of office makes his way to that office by very considerable support of lobbying-groups (campaignfunds) is very
worrying (that&#39;s why I used the term nepotism for 1 reason).


See above. I guess the charge of nepotism is to be expected, but I think for it to stick, you would have to somehow prove G.H.W. Bush wrangled the office of President for Dubya-if this were so, I think our liberal press would have sniffed it out.


By nepotism I actually meant his business-friends not his family :it had all the appearance that extensive promises were made to not only official lobbygroups but also other interestgroups (Carlyle).


The hangingpoint was the irregularities in the state of Florida ,governed by his brother (are they still searching for missing ballots and votingboxes ?)


You are mis-informed; there are no missing ballots or "voting boxes".

Considering what I said about the insurance-companies :I must correct myself : it was a Savings&Loan-bank ,exact name escapes me now but it was even called a ....something-gate.


This I will ignore on account of vagueness, it probably escapes you for good reason.

I&#39;ll concede these points to you as I&#39;m not too familiar on the details (who is?)

Have to stress again that I&#39;m not for any party : both disqualify and the system is to blame :financial interests on all levels plays too big a part (further limitation of campaignfunding would be a small start).


I agree, but these are generic problems inherent in the American election/campaign process, and are certainly not exclusive to Bush.

It&#39;s also worrying that the world is run by economists who probably all hold the same view (and had the same schooling) on &#39;free enterprise&#39; and a &#39;global market&#39;.


As they say, &#39;That&#39;s the way of the world&#39;; neither is this problem attributable to Bush.

If a guy calls his country (over and over again) the leader of the &#39;FREE&#39; world and if that same guy happens to lead that country :that makes him
very much so accountable.
The Third-world-countries see that &#39;free enterprise&#39; works only one way and promissed opportunities pass them by.No it&#39;s not only attributable to Bush but may we please expect some more vision beyond local financially based politics and
recent poll-results ?

j2k4
07-17-2003, 04:18 AM
ToraBoraDweller-

That post I find much more agreeable.

There are, without a doubt, things about Bush&#39;s administration that are burrs under my saddle, but to me, it&#39;s still miles beyond the previous one as to honesty (and I know I&#39;ll get heat for that).

I will be the first to acknowledge the problems inherent in our system, but I believe you&#39;d have to be a student of the "game" to gauge the difficulties of straightening out the mess.

Things here are so incredibly fucked up, I couldn&#39;t begin to tell you; you&#39;d really have to be here.

I&#39;d better stop, before I get started.... ;)

lynx
07-17-2003, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by j2k4@17 July 2003 - 05:18
I&#39;d better stop, before I get started.... ;)
What ?
Changing the habit of a lifetime ? :-"

chalkmongoose
07-21-2003, 03:37 AM
Hmmm, do I REALLY want Bush murdered? Why yes... In fact, let&#39;s cut his f&#39;cking balls off and feed em to his drunk daughters for all I care. HE KILLED 3000 Americans by not bothering to act on intelligence reports that could have stopped September 11th. So F&#39;ck you Bush... My friend&#39;s father died on 9/11, my father almost died, and I know quite a few more people whose lives were changed. I ain&#39;t saying Gore could&#39;ve done a better job, but if he&#39;d done the same asinine things Bush did, I&#39;d want Gore dead also.
So yes, call me crazy, but lets string up Bush on a tree, and show him how REAL Americans act. Let&#39;s tar and feather him in the public square... I want his guts for garters...

echidna
07-23-2003, 04:26 AM
Originally posted by chalkmongoose@21 July 2003 - 13:37
Hmmm, do I REALLY want Bush murdered? Why yes... In fact, let&#39;s cut his f&#39;cking balls off and feed em to his drunk daughters for all I care. HE KILLED 3000 Americans by not bothering to act on intelligence reports that could have stopped September 11th. So F&#39;ck you Bush... My friend&#39;s father died on 9/11, my father almost died, and I know quite a few more people whose lives were changed. I ain&#39;t saying Gore could&#39;ve done a better job, but if he&#39;d done the same asinine things Bush did, I&#39;d want Gore dead also.
So yes, call me crazy, but lets string up Bush on a tree, and show him how REAL Americans act. Let&#39;s tar and feather him in the public square... I want his guts for garters...
Ahh, the land of the free and the home of the brave&#33;
the greatest democracy on earth we&#39;re told
maybe these notions might serve to show why so many fear american liberation more than death
[please don&#39;t murder little bush it&#39;ll make him a martyr, just vote him out, then we can begin to forget]

Neil__
07-23-2003, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by chalkmongoose@21 July 2003 - 04:37
Hmmm, do I REALLY want Bush murdered? Why yes... In fact, let&#39;s cut his f&#39;cking balls off and feed em to his drunk daughters for all I care.

HE KILLED 3000 Americans by not bothering to act on intelligence reports that could have stopped September 11th. So F&#39;ck you Bush... My friend&#39;s father died on 9/11, my father almost died, and I know quite a few more people whose lives were changed.

I ain&#39;t saying Gore could&#39;ve done a better job, but if he&#39;d done the same asinine things Bush did, I&#39;d want Gore dead also.
So yes, call me crazy, but lets string up Bush on a tree, and show him how REAL Americans act. Let&#39;s tar and feather him in the public square... I want his guts for garters...



Is it possible that Bush deliberately let 911 happen so as to justify his War on terrorism"
He came out straight away with the attitude that he was going to save the world.

I know it&#39;s real conspiracy theory but how far do you think he would go. to become the new "messiah" our saviour the great and good Bush.

I&#39;ve been watching him since he was elected and he did his best to provoke some sort of attack.

I just hope America see&#39;s through him and we can get back to respecting it again.


Neil

denis123
07-24-2003, 08:00 AM
If he did "let it happen" then he was extraordinary fortunate that these terrorists had this plan at that particular time.

Come on Neil&#33; This highly speculative thought will not help this poll/ debate.


Edit: I voted no. and I have just removed (lead?)

lynx
07-24-2003, 09:17 AM
If you consider the way he damn near shit himself on his headlong rush into the bunker you will realise there is no way he could have had any prior knowledge of the events of 9/11.

That, along with his childlike sniggering whenever something happens to his opponents, should be enough to put anyone off voting for him again. His behaviour is hardly presidential and certainly not statesmanlike.

Neil__
07-24-2003, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by lynx@24 July 2003 - 10:17
If you consider the way he damn near shit himself on his headlong rush into the bunker you will realise there is no way he could have had any prior knowledge of the events of 9/11.

That, along with his childlike sniggering whenever something happens to his opponents, should be enough to put anyone off voting for him again. His behaviour is hardly presidential and certainly not statesmanlike.



Like they were going to tell him when.
Also he underestimated the threat.
and it happened before he expected.

we do know the escape route was already in place.
and he was in his hole in minutes.

And like he&#39;s going to act as if he knew it was comming.

I never said it was fact just a conspiracy theory.

Neil

jakert50
07-26-2003, 08:53 AM
First of all, I would like to second everything j2k4 has said so far... he&#39;s pretty much stolen my thunder (at least there&#39;s someone here with some common sense).

Also, I also agree that those who aren&#39;t in America shouldn&#39;t vote on such a topic. It&#39;s not like they have the opportunity to affect an impeachment anyway.

Thirdly, I want to say I voted no. Bush shouldn&#39;t be impeached. I read in this post somewhere someone was saying that we wouldn&#39;t impeach Gore (if he was voted in) because he wouldn&#39;t have started this war. Well, I think we would have. We are fighting over in Iraq because there are terrorists over there who hate America and everyone living here. This war is a preventative war - we are preventing further attacks on the US and other countries. Do you seriously think Sadaam has the best intentions for America? Do you seriously think everyone in Iraq enjoyed Sadaam as their leader?
Then I hear this bullcrap about Bush wanting to take Iraq for it&#39;s oil. I don&#39;t know how many times I have to say this: The oil in Iraq is going to be used to rebuild Iraq. I heard in the news recently that the new Iraq&#39;s first oil agreement was set in stone. What I didn&#39;t hear was the US receiving all the money for it. That&#39;s because the US didn&#39;t receive the money for it. The money is going to be used to rebuild Iraq--the perfect case scenario. If Bush was that desperate for oil, we&#39;ve got this big, huge, oil field we call "Alaska" where there&#39;s probably more oil there than there is in Iraq. We just have idiots called "Democrats" and "Environmentalists" who say we&#39;re gonna depleat the oil supply in Alaska. For goodness sake&#33; Why aren&#39;t they harping at Iraq for pumping up all that oil?? Have they forgotten that Alaska is huge? Like 3 or 5 times the size of Texas&#33;?&#33;?
It&#39;s just bewildering how some people can be so desperate. If you were the President of the US and a national crisis such as 9/11 occurred, what would you do? Just sit on you ass and ignore it? Would you let the terrorists in Iraq just run around and get more resources and more WMD? Personally, I&#39;d like to see you do better. All this crap about people wanting Bush to be impeached is largely constituted by the liberal-democratic based giant we call the media. I was working the other day and during my break, Nightly News was on the TV. As I was listening to it in the background, all I heard were negative points. This was the same day Usay and Qusay were found. Fox News Channel was very optomistic about the situation. Nightly News put it something like "Yes, these guys were found, but that doesn&#39;t matter, because there&#39;s still others out there, and we don&#39;t have Sadaam yet". I wonder what these guys would say if they were to say it face to face to our soldiers fighting in Iraq--especially the ones who found Usay and Qusay. Do you think they&#39;d be pleased when they hear that their milestone capture of Usay and Qusay sounded like a miniscule event? Maybe we should send the media over in Iraq and let them see what it&#39;s like fighting. And if, by slim chance, they find someone important, what if we just sluff it off and say it&#39;s not important?
Do you really think Gore would have done a better job in office? What do you think he would have done? My guess is he would be frightened by the fact that when the World Trade Center buildings fell, they broke a branch off a little tree. Then he&#39;d probably hold a nationwide day of mourning -- for the victims of 9/11, and that poor little tree. <_<
Personally, I&#39;m glad we have a guy with guts as our president.
In closing, never criticize someone unless you can do it better.

leave no trace
08-04-2003, 11:52 AM
I voted yes to impeachment long before the choice was ever on this forum.

Start from the beginning of GWB as president, the elections; WHAT THE FUCK HAPPENED DOWN THERE IN FLORIDA?
Most people don&#39;t realize that is where Bush&#39;s biggest blunder occured. Voter registration information was tampered with. That&#39;s not a theory, it&#39;s a fact. I&#39;m not going into all the names and details here, but if one wants to research it, use a search engine, keywords Cathrine Harris, The Carlyle Group.
Names of convicted felons were switched with legit registered voters among other things. Who dun&#39; it??&#33;&#33;
What about awol Bush and the Air National Guard. Does anybody realize that Bush scored incredibly low on the ASVAB type test, yet still was accepted ahead of hundreds of people?
I mean, there is an endless list of things the Bush family has done to advance their outrageous schemes.
For example, if one was so inclined, they could type Prescott Bush JP Morgan Chase Manhattan Hitler in google and come up with some interesting findings.
What about ENRON?
Still expecting the "liberal media" to enlighten you on these crooked politicians?

And what about about this goddamn war?
All I can say is, Bush Sr. had his chance. They must have realized how polluted Iraq was becoming (oil fires, depleted uranium) and wanted to pull the troops out before more of them developed "Gulf War Syndrome"..... which is basically a fucking cancer. To bad women give birth in Iraq now to dead deformed babies.

And the economy?
AMERICA IS GOING FUCKING BANKRUPT&#33;

james_bond_rulez
08-05-2003, 12:21 PM
impeach the bastard

the true mass murderer

sampson
08-06-2003, 07:58 AM
I voted yes because he wasn&#39;t even elected. The whole election only served to show the world what a mockery our government is. How does democracy work when an ass like this is allowed to steal our highest position right in front of the people? It was done openly, and because of the damned... and I do mean damned to hell... Repubs in this country who wanted the jerk in office, it was allowed to happen. Fuq Bush. I pray everyday that come election time next year, the people will have seen the light and will push this dick out of an office he never even belonged in. If they don&#39;t, I hope someone either assassinates him OR that I can get out of this country before the rest of the world nukes us because of him&#33;

I have never actually SEEN someone talk out of their ass. But I do know this is as close as Ill get. :o

j2k4
08-12-2003, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by sampson@6 August 2003 - 02:58

I voted yes because he wasn&#39;t even elected. The whole election only served to show the world what a mockery our government is. How does democracy work when an ass like this is allowed to steal our highest position right in front of the people? It was done openly, and because of the damned... and I do mean damned to hell... Repubs in this country who wanted the jerk in office, it was allowed to happen. Fuq Bush. I pray everyday that come election time next year, the people will have seen the light and will push this dick out of an office he never even belonged in. If they don&#39;t, I hope someone either assassinates him OR that I can get out of this country before the rest of the world nukes us because of him&#33;

I have never actually SEEN someone talk out of their ass. But I do know this is as close as Ill get. :o
Thrilling, isn&#39;t it?

The smell, though...... :blink:

grendelsfire
08-14-2003, 10:53 PM
Originally posted by angellynn26@16 June 2003 - 20:12
I voted yes because he wasn&#39;t even elected. The whole election only served to show the world what a mockery our government is. How does democracy work when an ass like this is allowed to steal our highest position right in front of the people? It was done openly, and because of the damned... and I do mean damned to hell... Repubs in this country who wanted the jerk in office, it was allowed to happen. Fuq Bush. I pray everyday that come election time next year, the people will have seen the light and will push this dick out of an office he never even belonged in. If they don&#39;t, I hope someone either assassinates him OR that I can get out of this country before the rest of the world nukes us because of him&#33;
And you want some dick head like perry in office. thats bull shit, all i have heard him in those democratic pieces of shit talk about is about bush lying to the country.. Which he didn&#39;t, I believe this country was built on morals like that.. We are supposed to be the ones spreading democracy and christianity through the world.. thats what most presidents were about. PLUS that fucker bill clinton tried to pull this same shit when he was president to get the eyes off of him fucking that skank bitch whore..

grendelsfire
08-14-2003, 11:01 PM
And all these bitch ass celebrities talking about "WHAT DID IRAQ DO TO US?" thats just the point.. lets wait till another 911 happens to go to war.. But i gurantee you that people would be blaming bush if we didn&#39;t go to war and iraq attacks us hard and ruthless like those terrorist sons of bitches.. Another thing is people bitch about us going over there because of oil... and will be the first people to bitch about how high the gas prices are...

lynx
08-14-2003, 11:26 PM
Quick, freebie&#39;s on offer at grendelsfire&#39;s house - tv, stereo, computer, just take what you want, he won&#39;t mind, he doesn&#39;t understand the concept of theft.

grendelsfire
08-14-2003, 11:30 PM
lol... well I don&#39;t see what the big deal is when most people who talk on this forum STEAL from the entertainment, and software companys... Plus are we really using the oil yet? I don&#39;t know... Anywho... there is millions of dollars that WE found there and what did we do with it? hmmm... hmm... WE GAVE IT TO THOSE UNGREATFUL PEOPLE.. well a lot of them are ungreatful

Rat Faced
08-15-2003, 11:14 AM
You mean you gave it BACK to those ungrateful people that have had their husbands, siblings and children dying for the last decade due to allied blockades of medical supplies, and then finally war.

Wonder why they&#39;re "ungrateful".......?

clocker
08-16-2003, 03:31 AM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@15 August 2003 - 05:14
You mean you gave it BACK to those ungrateful people that have had their husbands, siblings and children dying for the last decade due to allied blockades of medical supplies, and then finally war.

Wonder why they&#39;re "ungrateful".......?
Those "husbands, siblings and children" died not as a result of an allied blockade, but rather, due to their leader&#39;s propensity to build lavish palaces, maintain and expand his military forces, and hoard billions of diverted dollars into foreign bank accounts for his personal use.
That hardly seems to be the fault of the allies, does it?

grendelsfire
08-16-2003, 04:14 PM
i concur

grendelsfire
08-16-2003, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@15 August 2003 - 11:14
You mean you gave it BACK to those ungrateful people that have had their husbands, siblings and children dying for the last decade due to allied blockades of medical supplies, and then finally war.

Wonder why they&#39;re "ungrateful".......?
the point was that if we were greedy and money hungry like a lot of people say we would have easily taken that money.. No, we gave it back to them.. We are trying to help them. We have helped them a lot.. and they decide to kill our men every day.. Burn our flags every day .. YES MOST OF THEM ARE UNGREATFUL

myfiles3000
08-16-2003, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by clocker@16 August 2003 - 04:31
Those "husbands, siblings and children" died not as a result of an allied blockade, but rather, due to their leader&#39;s propensity to build lavish palaces, maintain and expand his military forces, and hoard billions of diverted dollars into foreign bank accounts for his personal use.That hardly seems to be the fault of the allies, does it?
clocker, sorry but that&#39;s just not accurate. There was a time when Iraqi infrastructure was among the best in the middle east, but the blockades crippled civilians FAR more than could possibly be accounted for by Hussein and his kleptocracy. This is not an either/or issue, both American and Iraqi governments caused the starvation of civilians. I don&#39;t know the hard numbers, but its hard to believe that the Hussein did more damage than the effect of the trade restrictions.

Do I need to bring up the famous madeline albright comment, about the starvation of thousands of children and adults per month, cause by the UN restrictions, being "a price we&#39;re willing to pay"? the US was a primary actor in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. it really is that simple if you leave the biases behind.

Another great harm is the massive spikes in cancer caused by the American use of depleted-uranium shells in the first gulf war.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/europe...ium/default.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/europe/2001/depleted_uranium/default.stm)

hobbes
08-16-2003, 10:46 PM
Originally posted by myfiles3000@16 August 2003 - 17:27

clocker, sorry but that&#39;s just not accurate. There was a time when Iraqi infrastructure was among the best in the middle east, but the blockades crippled civilians FAR more than could possibly be accounted for by Hussein and his kleptocracy. This is not an either/or issue, both American and Iraqi governments caused the starvation of civilians. I don&#39;t know the hard numbers, but its hard to believe that the Hussein did more damage than the effect of the trade restrictions.

Do I need to bring up the famous madeline albright comment, about the starvation of thousands of children and adults per month, cause by the UN restrictions, being "a price we&#39;re willing to pay"? the US was a primary actor in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. it really is that simple if you leave the biases behind.

Another great harm is the massive spikes in cancer caused by the American use of depleted-uranium shells in the first gulf war.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/europe...ium/default.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/europe/2001/depleted_uranium/default.stm)
But why were there trade restrictions? Kuwait a minute, now I remember. Who could had them lifted by cooperating? Seems Saddam killed his own, both directly and indirectly, but damn he built some sweet palaces.


How did UN restrictions suddenly become US causing these deaths? This would imply that we solely control it. We are merely a member. So why do we take full blame for UN decisions? Shouldn&#39;t all countries involved bear the burden. After all, it seems that we are blamed whether we follow UN decisions (the trade restrictions) or we ignore them (invading Iraq).

Seems ironic that if we control the UN, then how the hell did it occur that the UN opposed our invasion of Iraq. It would seem then that the UN resolutions are, at least to some degree, a concensus of the participating nations.


I certainly feel that you make valid points about culpability, but to tell Clocker that he is lead by his biases and the answer is simple makes me wonder if you are blind to your own? The answers are not black and white.


As for the DU, I would expect Kuwait to also show spikes in cancer incidence, as DU weapons were used there as well. If we are only seeing problems in Iraq, then perhaps something else is to blame. The issue does merit further investigation, to say the least. America has a history of using "items" before they understand the long-term consequences.

lynx
08-16-2003, 11:31 PM
By and large, I tend to agree with Hobbes on this, it was a UN restriction, not just a US one.

However, attempts were made to lift the restrictions, but these were blocked by the security council, primarily the US and UK, so they must bear a larger (but not exclusive) share of the responsibility for the suffering caused by the sanctions.

Sadly, I fear that time will show that the primary reason for the invasion of Iraq was that the US needed the sanctions to be lifted, but politically could not allow this while Saddam Hussain was in power.

Why did the US need the sanctions lifted ?

With Iraqi oil sanctioned, the US was being squeezed on oil prices, and had no way of leveraging the market without tapping further into its own reserves. The US was in danger of being extremely vulnerable to disruption in supplies from relatively small producers such as Venezuela (which sells almost all of it&#39;s oil to the US). It needed another big player in the market, and one over which it could exercise a large amount of control.

So the possibility that the weapons inspectors would say that Iraq had complied with UN requirements would have been disastrous for the US, this would have put another big player on the market, but it would have been another one which could squeeze the US.

And so we go full circle, were we all lied to about the reasons for going to war ?

Hindsight is tending to show us that there are no WMD, and probably no programs for WMD. A public inquiry in the UK seems to be heading towards the conclusion that the dossier presented both in the UK and the US was manipulated to highlight calims that could not be corroborated.

Whether you support your country or not, do you really feel you should support a leader who has deliberately lied to you over matters which has and is still causing the deaths of your own countries servicemen ? I include my own country in this.

Rat Faced
09-19-2003, 10:59 PM
Open Letter (http://congress.org/congressorg/bio/userletter/?letter_id=47382641&content_dir=congressorg) at Congree.org.



September 19, 2003

Representative Matheson,
The Bush Administration has lied to Congress and the American people. Isn&#39;t this a crime? If I were to rob a bank and then six months later say, "Yes, I did it but it was justified at the time". Does this mean that I am innocent and that I cannot be charged with criminal activity. Congress needs to step up to the plate and play hard ball. The United States government is not a corporation&#33; These individual men must be held accountable for there actions.

Below is an example of their deception:

Bush Administration Spends Week Retracting Assertions about Saddam&#39;s Threat to the U.S.

The Bush administration this week backed away from three major rationales for going to war in Iraq last March, undermining its assertions that Hussein&#39;s Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States and its allies.

September 11th
As recently as Sunday, Vice President Cheney, claimed that on the question of Saddam Hussein&#39;s involvement in September 11th, "We just don&#39;t know."[1] But within days, both President Bush and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld each admitted there was no evidence that Hussein had any connection. On Wednesday, Bush maintained there was "no evidence" that Hussein was involved.[2] Two days later, Rumsfeld, said, "I&#39;ve not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that."[3]

Yet in March, Hussein&#39;s possible involvement in the terrorist attacks garnered support for the war from many Americans. At the time, the widely reported meeting between 9/11 planner Mohammed Atta and Iraq&#39;s security chief in Prague a few months before the attack was found by the CIA not to be credible.[4]

&#39;Reconstituted Nuclear Weapons Program&#39;
Recently, Cheney backed away from the assertion he made three days before the war began, that the strongest reason for going to war was that "we believe [Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."[5] But the International Atomic Energy Agency reported two weeks before that , "There
was no indication of resumed nuclear activities."[6] And six months later on
Meet the Press, Cheney said simply, "I misspoke."[7]

Weapons of Mass Destruction
This week, Rumsfeld reversed earlier statements claiming that the U.S. knew
where Iraq&#39;s weapons of destruction were located. When asked why the
weapons hadn&#39;t been found, this past Tuesday Rumsfeld said, "What do you mean? You&#39;re talking about a country the size of California."[8] Yet months ago, just two weeks into the war, Rumsfeld said, "We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."[9]


Sources:
1. Meet the Press, NBC, 9/14/03.
2. Remarks by the President After Meeting with Members of the Congressional Conference Committee on Energy Legislation, 9/17/03, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1204597&l=5426
3. Defense Department News Briefing, Secretary Rumsfeld and General Pace, 9/16/03, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1204597&l=5427
4. "Bush Team Stands Firm on Iraq," Washington Post, 9/15/03, p. A1. 5. Meet the Press, NBC, 3/16/03. 6. The Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq: An Update, 3/7/03, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1204597&l=5428
7. Meet the Press, NBC, 9/14/03.
8. Defense Department News Briefing, Secretary Rumsfeld and General Pace, 9/16/03, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1204597&l=5427
9. This Week with George Stephanopolous, ABC, 3/30/03.



And another one..... (http://congress.org/congressorg/bio/userletter/?letter_id=47370911&content_dir=congressorg)


September 19, 2003

Dear Senator Akaka,
If I understand this correctly, one of the conditions of Iraq&#39;s sovereignty is the sale of its oil fields to foreign investors. Aside from the more sinister implications of this, does this not mean that we are spending taxpayer money to repair and develop oil fields for the major oil companies? Will the taxpayer be reimbursed with other than vacuous promises of cheaper oil? Will Major Oil or its investors pay any tax on profits they import?


Eugene , OR


Ok, it was just an excuse to bump the topic up, as evidence is emerging in USA, UK and Australia as to the scale of the lies etc.

Which means the I may start a new poll soon ;)

bigboab
09-22-2003, 03:29 AM
Somebody will say it is a plant&#33; I&#39;m a peach bush. :P

Infested Cats
09-27-2003, 05:58 PM
http://onetermpresident.org/logo.jpg (http://onetermpresident.org/)
Come one, come all (http://onetermpresident.org/).

nikita69
09-27-2003, 09:23 PM
frankly i didn&#39;t vote. no option provided :)

"I&#39;m no flag-waver, no patriot, and am fully aware that venality, brutality, and hypocrisy are imprinted on the leaden soul of every state. But when a country ceases to be merely a country and becomes an empire, then the scale of operations changes dramatically. So may I clarify that I speak as a subject of the American Empire? I speak as a slave who presumes to criticise her king." from my neighbour and couldn&#39;t have said it better.

razorsharp013
09-27-2003, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by nikita69@27 September 2003 - 16:23
frankly i didn&#39;t vote. no option provided :)

"I&#39;m no flag-waver, no patriot, and am fully aware that venality, brutality, and hypocrisy are imprinted on the leaden soul of every state. But when a country ceases to be merely a country and becomes an empire, then the scale of operations changes dramatically. So may I clarify that I speak as a subject of the American Empire? I speak as a slave who presumes to criticise her king." from my neighbour and couldn&#39;t have said it better.
Again, well said Nikita.
I&#39;ve only now discovered this poll and if you&#39;ve paid attention to any of my other posts relating to this topic my vote should be obvious.

Calvarian2003
10-02-2003, 08:18 AM
Since I&#39;m not an American citizen I won&#39;t bias the actual poll by voting. I&#39;m not sure if Bush should be impeached, personally. He claims that he is a religious man but he clearly has been biased by the oil men.

I don&#39;t disagree with the war in Iraq or Afghanistan though. How foolish is the Western World to allow countries to not only support but encourage terrorism while we all stand by watching, and even HELPING them by continuing to give them financial aid&#33;

Not only that, the disgusting human rights&#39; abuses that occur in such countries go completely without mention in the media. To think that the Pope has expressed his disagreement with the US War on Terror numerous times, yet has never ever criticised the actions of Saddam Hussein which resulted in the deaths of over one million people. ONE MILLION. How can any decent person, who&#39;s been brought up in the relatively lap of luxury in a Western country, where we enjoy the best standard of living and the most rights in the world, and claim that removing that bigoted, violent warmonger was as BAD thing? What is wrong with these people?&#33;

Personally, Bush disappoints me. Quite frankly, I support the view that American fighter pilots allowed Osama bin Laden&#39;s convoy to escape into Pakistan on orders of the Bush Administration, so as not to offend the House of Saud royal family. The hell with them&#33; If the Middle East didn&#39;t have oil, it would be of no use to anyone. The majority of the land is desolate and barren.

Forget seeking out other sources. We have the technology and the money to eliminate our need for fossil fuels altogether right now. It&#39;d be better for the environment and we wouldn&#39;t have any reason to place ourselves in jeopardy by giving wealth to the crazed violent DICTATORS of the Middle East.

Thought for the day: It&#39;s easy to criticise your government when they aren&#39;t threatening to massacre you and your family for doing so.

ForbiddenDNA
01-01-2004, 02:51 AM
Bush is a great president..

He gone through a lot of &#036;hit, to become a president..

So, no impeaching..

vidcc
01-01-2004, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by ShockAndAwe^i^@17 June 2003 - 03:38
I don&#39;t think it&#39;s fair that foreign nationals get to vote on wether our president should be impeached or not.
C&#39;mon... Saddam was either the dumbest dictator ever not opening the country up to inspections when he didn&#39;t have them or their very well hidden or a they&#39;ve been moved.
Simple as that&#33;
do you think for one moment bush would allow ANY other country to inspect America&#39;s weapons ? even if the UN decreed it

hobbes
01-01-2004, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by vidcc+1 January 2004 - 18:42--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc &#064; 1 January 2004 - 18:42)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-ShockAndAwe^i^@17 June 2003 - 03:38
I don&#39;t think it&#39;s fair that foreign nationals get to vote on wether our president should be impeached or not.
C&#39;mon... Saddam was either the dumbest dictator ever not opening the country up to inspections when he didn&#39;t have them or their very well hidden or a they&#39;ve been moved.
Simple as that&#33;
do you think for one moment bush would allow ANY other country to inspect America&#39;s weapons ? even if the UN decreed it[/b][/quote]
Do you understand the context in which the UN demanded weapons inspections?

Iraq had invaded Kuwait and needed to be forcefully removed. The weapons inspections were a measure taken to ensure that Iraq didn&#39;t do it again after the coalition forces returned home.

These inspections weren&#39;t decided on arbitrarily. You lose a war, you pay a certain price.

vidcc
01-01-2004, 06:51 PM
Originally posted by hobbes+1 January 2004 - 18:32--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes &#064; 1 January 2004 - 18:32)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by vidcc@1 January 2004 - 18:42
<!--QuoteBegin-ShockAndAwe^i^@17 June 2003 - 03:38
I don&#39;t think it&#39;s fair that foreign nationals get to vote on wether our president should be impeached or not.
C&#39;mon... Saddam was either the dumbest dictator ever not opening the country up to inspections when he didn&#39;t have them or their very well hidden or a they&#39;ve been moved.
Simple as that&#33;
do you think for one moment bush would allow ANY other country to inspect America&#39;s weapons ? even if the UN decreed it
Do you understand the context in which the UN demanded weapons inspections?

Iraq had invaded Kuwait and needed to be forcefully removed. The weapons inspections were a measure taken to ensure that Iraq didn&#39;t do it again after the coalition forces returned home.

These inspections weren&#39;t decided on arbitrarily. You lose a war, you pay a certain price. [/b][/quote]
yes i do understand fully, however my point was do you really think bush would allow inspections and if he did do you not think he would hide weapons?.
don&#39;t misunderstand me on this ...i think saddam was and is an evil man and i am glad to see the back of him, however he was doing what most leaders would do.
so he invaded another country...hasn&#39;t the USA done that in the past ? for whatever justification.
We in the USA should look at ourselves a bit closer and stop thinking that we are the only place in the world to be without sin.
the USA is the only country to ever have dropped an atom bomb on human beings...and we did it twice...and yet the justification for not allowing other contries to have these weapons is that they would use them.

my personal belief was that this war was about oil....there are dictators just as bad as saddam out there but noting is done about them..just so happens that these countries don&#39;t have any monetary gain in liberation (but then what gives us the right to say how another country operates )
IN JEST the world has the right to freedom, justice and the pursiut of the american way

hobbes
01-01-2004, 07:31 PM
Youre&#39; kind of rambling all over the place.

If the US were a fully vanquished country and security forces were poised outside our borders saying comply with these sanctions or bear the consequences, Bush would allow the inspections, he would have to.

I doubt that he would have decided to gold plate the White House and add his visage to Mount Rushmore, while US citizens were dying by the thousands under sanctions.

Basically, Saddam thought that posturing to the world was more important than the lives of his citizens. I don&#39;t see that in Bush or any American Preisdent.

So, "yes" he would if the people is supposed to be providing for are suffering.

clocker
01-01-2004, 08:09 PM
I am certainly no fan of George Bush and ardently hope that he is not reelected, but I have yet to read a single valid reason for his impeachment.
Disagree all you wish with his politics and the way he has implemented them, but an impeachable offence?
No.

Busyman
01-01-2004, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by ForbiddenDNA@1 January 2004 - 03:51
Bush is a great president..

He gone through a lot of &#036;hit, to become a president..

So, no impeaching..
What makes him "great"? :blink:

I wouldn&#39;t impeach him but name one crowning achievement that puts him in "great" status.

Impeachment is ridiculous because the question remains, "FOR WHAT?"

hobbes
01-01-2004, 09:20 PM
I think the world wants him impeached because he is an international thug. Under the false premise that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and posed a threat to American security, he conquered and is occupying said country.

The true reason appears to be securing oil for his country.

The situation is abit more complex, but that is the gist of it.


What makes me sick is that private interest oil groups have kept the US citizens hostage by impeding any serious efforts at finding alternative sources of energy. The schoolbell rang in 1981. Remember being told that the planet only had 40 years of oil left? Then several years later the problem seemed to go away, meanwhile gas is no longer 50 cents per gallon, but &#036;1.50. Look at us today with all these gas guzzlers back on the street. These hummers are ridiculously wasteful. Why have we not thrown all our resources into becoming energy independent, oil a thing of the past?

Politics and money. We should have thrown every resource into becoming self sufficient, not into how to manipulate the world to insure our oil supply. But our oil companies have such political influence and are certainly sleeping with the government that all those ultra 100mpg cars and such ideas were bought out or coerced away.

There is no excuse other than corruption and greed of individuals that the US is not energy independent today.

Busyman
01-01-2004, 09:41 PM
At one point alot of alternative fuel based patents were being snapped up by oil companies and sat on.

hobbes
01-01-2004, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by Busyman@1 January 2004 - 22:41
At one point alot of alternative fuel based patents were being snapped up by oil companies and sat on.
Like Shaq-Fu. That could really have been great&#33;

http://www.myezboard.com/projects/ezboard/ezboard_userimages/spursdominion/images/shaqferry.jpg

Here is a rare photo of a proto-type, attempting to harness power from Danny Ferry. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Busyman
01-01-2004, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by hobbes+1 January 2004 - 22:48--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 1 January 2004 - 22:48)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@1 January 2004 - 22:41
At one point alot of alternative fuel based patents were being snapped up by oil companies and sat on.
Like Shaq-Fu. That could really have been great&#33;

http://www.myezboard.com/projects/ezboard/ezboard_userimages/spursdominion/images/shaqferry.jpg

Here is a rare photo of a proto-type, attempting to harness power from Danny Ferry. :lol: :lol: :lol: [/b][/quote]
That&#39;s hilarious&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; :lol: :lol: :lol:

UHOH :o