Forgetful War Pigs Dressed As Donkeys

[>SHOCK<^>WAVE>]

Subject: Where Bush Got His SORRY ASS INTELLIGENCE INFO... READ THIS

Where Bush Got His SORRY ASS INTELLIGENCE INFO

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq&#39;s weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq&#39;s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq&#39;s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002[//b]
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapon stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating America&#39;s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

SO NOW THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, AND THAT HE TOOK US TO WAR UNECESSARILY &#33;
TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PRESIDENT LEADING US TO WAR.




[b]Now in darkness, world stops turning
As the war machine keeps burning
No more war pigs of the power
The hand of God has struck the hour
Day of judgement, God is calling
On their knees, the war pigs crawling
Begging mercy for their sins
Satan, laughing, spreads his wings
All right now&#33;


Ozzy Osborne, needs a green card.

[j2k4]

Now that&#39;s just plain not fair-using their own comments against them. :)

How are they supposed to respond? :huh:

I&#39;m sure this tactic violates some law; freedom of speech or something.... ;)

[ZaZu]

Originally posted by >SHOCK<^>WAVE>@1 August 2004 - 12:27
Now in darkness, world stops turning
As the war machine keeps burning
No more war pigs of the power
The hand of God has struck the hour
Day of judgement, God is calling
On their knees, the war pigs crawling
Begging mercy for their sins
Satan, laughing, spreads his wings
All right now&#33;
Rock on&#33; :blow:

[3RA1N1AC]

who is this guy, again? he&#39;s got like a million frickin&#39; accounts.

http://filesharingtalk.com/index.php?showuser=127963

http://filesharingtalk.com/index.php?showuser=123325

http://filesharingtalk.com/index.php?showuser=117605

[Snee]

I thought it was another of TROUBLE MAKER&#39;s aliases.

[Rat Faced]

Seems i cant see one thing there, that is from an intelligence agency.

The inspectors pre 1998 didnt have much luck, so he may have had...

The inspectors in the 21st century had a lot more co-operation from Iraq than they did from the coalition by all accounts, and they couldnt find any.

They were willing to keep looking too, if i remember correctly and wanted to...except every day they were in there worked against the "Intelligence" available, which has since been shown to be bunk....

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@1 August 2004 - 19:17
Seems i cant see one thing there, that is from an intelligence agency.

The inspectors pre 1998 didnt have much luck, so he may have had...

The inspectors in the 21st century had a lot more co-operation from Iraq than they did from the coalition by all accounts, and they couldnt find any.

They were willing to keep looking too, if i remember correctly and wanted to...except every day they were in there worked against the "Intelligence" available, which has since been shown to be bunk....
Rat,

I think the poster was more focusing American politics. The Dem&#39;s want to condemn Bush for his false claims of WMD in Iraq, when they, themselves, espoused this belief as well.

[Rat Faced]

Ah,

my bad

Fire away ;)

[clocker]

So what?

Bush is the one who stepped up and took a swing at the pinata.
Too bad for him that it was full of shit instead of WMD, huh?

There is no way of knowing what Gore might have done had he ascended into the Presidency.

Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfwitz did...the responsibility lays at their feet.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by clocker@1 August 2004 - 21:11
So what?

Bush is the one who stepped up and took a swing at the pinata.
Too bad for him that it was full of shit instead of WMD, huh?

There is no way of knowing what Gore might have done had he ascended into the Presidency.

Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfwitz did...the responsibility lays at their feet.
Clocker,

If you think a man has a gun and might shoot someone and do nothing, you are a coward.

If you charge the man and find he has no gun, you look foolish.

But, if you sincerely believed that he had a gun, can you find fault with the attacker? No, you find fault with the person too afraid to act on his beliefs.

But again, I really have my doubts that Bush believed that Saddam had WMD.

[clocker]

Then why not North Korea, Iran, or Syria instead of Iraq?
No presumptions of bad intent, nor the ability to actually implement it with those guys.

For goodness sakes, we had been bombing, surveilling, and inspecting the hell out of Iraq for a decade...how was it supposed to muster an offence?

If we are supposed to be the world&#39;s playground monitor we appear to be chasing down pottymouths while Ted Bundy lurks behind the swingset.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by clocker@1 August 2004 - 23:01
Then why not North Korea, Iran, or Syria instead of Iraq?
No presumptions of bad intent, nor the ability to actually implement it with those guys.

For goodness sakes, we had been bombing, surveilling, and inspecting the hell out of Iraq for a decade...how was it supposed to muster an offence?

If we are supposed to be the world&#39;s playground monitor we appear to be chasing down pottymouths while Ted Bundy lurks behind the swingset.
I have already posted why. Don&#39;t you read anything other than responses to your posts?

Actually, it was a response to you in which I explained "why". Do you just ignore those posts which you cannot refute or what?

[clocker]

And I have already stated that I don&#39;t agree with you.
Disagreement does not imply that I haven&#39;t read the damn post hobbes, it means that I&#39;ve failed to be persuaded by it.

[>SHOCK<^>WAVE>]

Bush administration officials told Fox News thatmustard gas was also recently discovered.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

“The discovery of sarin gas and mustard gas in Iraq shows that the search for weapons of mass destruction is not finished and must continue,” Diaz-Balart said. “Saddam claimed to have destroyed all sarin gas rounds before the 1991 Gulf War. Obviously, he lied. Saddam was supposed to account for 550 shells containing mustard gas. No surprise, he lied again.
http://www.house.gov/mariodiaz-balart/news..._nerveagent.htm (http://www.house.gov/mariodiaz-balart/news/2004news/051704_nerveagent.htm)


The Associated Press
Updated: 12:04 p.m.ET Jan.11, 2004
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Danish and Icelandic troops uncovered a cache of 36 shells buried in the Iraqi desert, and preliminary tests showed they contained a liquid blister agent, the Danish military said Saturday.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3925906/


Warheads with mustard, sarin found by Polish troops in Iraq

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1163808/posts

Sarin: 1st WMD found in Iraq
17/05/2004 17:48-(SA)

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,...1528363,00.html (http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1528363,00.html)


Now we come full circle on your war pigs out right lies

SO NOW THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, AND THAT HE TOOK US TO WAR UNECESSARILY &#33;
TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PRESIDENT LEADING US TO WAR.

[clocker]

Ah, shock....

NO ONE is claiming that there "never were" WMD in Iraq, simply that they were no longer being produced and that there weren&#39;t the massive stockpiles that Bush claimed.
All of your "news" is months old.

Nice try though.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by clocker@1 August 2004 - 23:59
And I have already stated that I don&#39;t agree with you.
Disagreement does not imply that I haven&#39;t read the damn post hobbes, it means that I&#39;ve failed to be persuaded by it.
ok, but I am right, you are wrong.

I am a Busyman certified debator.

[clocker]

Fair enough.

I never said I was right.


Just that I&#39;m better than you.

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by >SHOCK<^>WAVE>@1 August 2004 - 19:12
Warheads with mustard, sarin found by Polish troops in Iraq

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1163808/posts
AH, FREEREPUBLIC.COM, AN EXCELLENT SITE FOR NEWS AND DISCUSSION. IF ONLY THAT COY MISTRESS WOULD NOT SPURN MY VEGETABLE LOVE, THE WAY SHE DOES.

[Barbarossa]

Throughout the past 18 months, Bush and Blair convinced their respective electorates that they were right to go to war because they had secret evidence that the WMD&#39;s that Saddam possessed posed a credible threat to their collective national interests.

Now that it has been all but proved that whatever weapons Saddam did possess did not pose a credible threat, or indeed any threat, apparently we are supposed to believe that they were still right to go to war, just because they sincerely believed that the weapons posed a credible threat. (even though they didn&#39;t).

Sorry, but that doesn&#39;t hold water. If that happened in a court of law, then the defendent would be pardoned now, and be claiming damages against his accusers.

The WMD issue, in fact every issue that was put forward, including human rights, was just an excuse to get rid of a powerful guy who wasn&#39;t playing ball anymore.

[Alex H]

Originally posted by hobbes@1 August 2004 - 23:21
If you think a man has a gun and might shoot someone and do nothing, you are a coward.

If you charge the man and find he has no gun, you look foolish.

But, if you sincerely believed that he had a gun, can you find fault with the attacker? No, you find fault with the person too afraid to act on his beliefs.
There are many people who would consider calling the police.

I have to agree with clocker - The Democrats came up with a great dare, but Bush was still the idiot who accepted it. Perhaps the Dems knew he was an idiot (see, they are just as smart as everyon else) and we just feeding him dodgy info.

Clinton didn&#39;t have an overwhelming need to invade Iraq. Perhaps that was because he knew it was more about politics than dangerous weapons, and decided it would be better to leave the whole thing alone...

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Alex H@2 August 2004 - 20:49

Clinton didn&#39;t have an overwhelming need to invade Iraq. Perhaps that was because he knew it was more about politics than dangerous weapons, and decided it would be better to leave the whole thing alone...
Oh-

Clinton&#39;s in play again?

Okay:

Why is it okay to adopt a policy of "regime change" as regards Iraq, then sit on the sidelines and wait for the U.N. to carry the ball?

Or was he too smart to accept his own "dare"?

Clinton had no trouble mustering a few ill-chosen targets for his cruise missiles, but only after getting his own missile sufficiently polished and being found out.

Now, that fairly reeks of legitimacy, doesn&#39;t it?

Funny how this just gets a pass from all of you....oh, that&#39;s right......no one died.

I wonder how many Iraqi babies went without milk, though?

I&#39;ve heard thousands died for want of that factory&#39;s production.

BTW-I&#39;m running for President of the United States on the Anybody But Bush OR Kerry ticket.

Can I count on you guys?

You know it makes sense.

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@2 August 2004 - 20:11


BTW-I&#39;m running for President of the United States on the Anybody But Bush OR Kerry ticket.

Can I count on you guys?

You know it makes sense.
Hmmm...
Are you and Nader going to debate?

I would find that interesting.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by j2k4@2 August 2004 - 22:11
BTW-I&#39;m running for President of the United States on the Anybody But Bush OR Kerry ticket.

Can I count on you guys?

You know it makes sense.
I don&#39;t know man. I would entertain that but you seem like an extension of Bush...head and shaft.

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by j2k4@2 August 2004 - 21:11
BTW-I&#39;m running for President of the United States on the Anybody But Bush OR Kerry ticket.

Can I count on you guys?

You know it makes sense.
You’ve got my vote J2.

One question though: Can I be your running mate?

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4@2 August 2004 - 20:11
BTW-I&#39;m running for President of the United States on the Anybody But Bush OR Kerry ticket.

Can I count on you guys?

You know it makes sense.
I would vote for you but apparently the call has been given for my daughter and i to run....i think we would stand more of a chance if she was pres. and i was vice pres. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[BigBank_Hank]

Vid please. If you and your daughter were to run against the juggernaut of J2 and myself we’d crush you.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@3 August 2004 - 09:26
Vid please. If you and your daughter were to run against the juggernaut of J2 and myself we’d crush you.
her manifesto (http://filesharingtalk.com/index.php?act=ST&f=5&t=118886&hl=&view=findpost&p=1087146)


Are you sure you could compete ? :01:

Anyway, going to be out for the day so "y&#39;all enjoy yourselves y&#39;hear"

[j2k4]

I regret that, due to the current monolithic two-party structure we are afflicted with, we will never hear the passion and reason of an Alan Keyes, who can illuminate and elucidate issues so as to humble such as Jesse Jackson.

Whatever Ralph Nader might have to say about anything other than the fallibility of big business, or pollution?

He&#39;ll never have an audience for any of his views.

Take, for example, Kweisi Mfume or Julian Bond.

Broadcast their NAACP speeches to the nation.

If we were able to put the true entire range of opinion/rhetoric/philosophy on display for all to see, the undeniable imperative of natural selection would separate the wheat from the chaff.

We would be less likely to suffer the idiots, and much more likely to have a menu of logic and reason; a palette of thought and ideas.

I don&#39;t wear my religious beliefs on my sleeve for the precise reason that they are mine, and no one else&#39;s.

While I desire to keep my religion to myself, I don&#39;t particularly care that anyone is aware that I am religious, but I don&#39;t expect to be taken to task for the mere fact of my possessing a belief.

The U.S., while claiming to be the global exemplar of freedom, suffers from a peculiar and overwhelming brand of intolerance which has the effect of stunting exactly those rights which are so frequently touted as the core of American life, and of particular importance to our founding.

In order to make a point, let&#39;s consider Freedom of Religion.

Now, there are only three words in the phrase; none are of the ten-dollar variety, and the phrase certainly doesn&#39;t require any legal expertise to parse.

How is it, then, it has been found to legally establish active discrimination against religion?

It is apparent that current judicial scholarship, via the addition of a heretofore silent "R" and an "M", has re-configured the phrase to mean, quite literally, Freedom FROM Religion.

A seemingly adjunct bastardization has been applied to Freedom of Speech.

Current interpretation of that right goes something like this:

You may choose to say absolutely anything you like.

You are assured of legal recourse in the increasingly likely event you hear something you object to.

However, if you are

1) White, of Anglo-Saxon descent, and/or 2) Are Christian, or hold any Christian/Zionist beliefs, none of the above applies.

True enlightenment does not exist; those considering themselves to be among the intellectually "anointed" continue to seek retribution and reparation on behalf of historically repressed minorities, and in the process deny them the right and the dignity and the ability to move on from shackles which are, by and large, only imaginary.

Witness the Reverend Al Sharpton at the Democratic Convention, Mr. Mfume and Mr. Bond addressing the NAACP gatherings, warning blacks not to stray from the Democrat "reservation", lest they be branded traitors to the cause.

"Black" is no longer a skin-color; it is an ideology-how else is it possible for Clarence Thomas not to be accorded status as Afro-American?

Those who tout black achievement seem not to have noticed Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice.

Due to an intransigent media, simple conclusions cannot be reached, and simple facts are routinely ignored, and we abide their intellectual dishonesty and sloppiness.

Mediocrity is the desired and desirable norm everywhere we look; the one single concensus on this board is the basic dishonesty of those who hold public office, but our chagrin over this fact never coalesces, for which fact the elected and selected are eternally grateful and supportive.

We have the right, the power and the responsibility to demand more from those WE elect, yet we do nothing.


Oh, fuck it-what the hell am I doing, running for office?

Yeah; take ME to the convention, eh?

They&#39;d love me....

vid-

Tell your daughter her platform places her head-and-shoulders above the likes of P. Diddy.

Actually, scratch that-the less she knows about him, the better.

Sorry for the rant, y&#39;all, I was beset by a prolonged fit of Random Thought. :D

[BigBank_Hank]

No need to apologize for the rant that was very well put.

One thing that I do want to touch on is the reference to religion. That’s one thing that I do not like about the President (you hear that Busyman) is his constant mentioning of religion. I think that what I believe is between me and the man upstairs and no one else and I don’t try to force my religious beliefs on anyone.

You never did answer my question though J2. Personally I think that we’d be unstoppable combination.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@3 August 2004 - 20:43
I think that what I believe is between me and the man upstairs

You live in an apartment block?...sorry couldn&#39;t help myself.

J2.
as someone that doesn&#39;t believe i probably don&#39;t appreciate your experience regarding religion, but i do live in Nm which is a reasonably religious area. None of the churches have sitting space if one doesn&#39;t get there early enough. I have probably the opposite to your experience....i get hassle for saying i don&#39;t believe.
Now i have never denied that i could be wrong and i would never TELL anyone that there is no GOD..... but i am not afforded the same treatment in return.
I am saddened that you feel that you are discriminated against because you hold certain beliefs.

As to the race issue. We are Americans...period... What on earth is this..."i&#39;m irish American, Italian or African American", especially when many haven&#39;t stepped foot on their supposed homeland. Don&#39;t get me wrong here, ancestry is important and something to be proud of, i myself have mixed ancestors...English & American ..my wife has oriental ancestry, but be more proud of being who YOU are AN AMERICAN and not where your grandparents came from.
It saddens me that the USA, the land of freedom, needs to look at anyone differently...shame on us.
On the double standard side of my beliefs i see us as humans...men and women and it saddens me that we have to call ourselves anything at all...we are citizens of the world.

I know that racism exists and i hate it and the USA in many areas has a shameful past and indeed present, but to me i don&#39;t see a black man...i see a man, an equal.

[>SHOCK<^>WAVE>]

Kerry no-show in intelligence committee
Missed 38 of 49 public hearings in 8 years
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=39752 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39752)



© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON – Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry missed most of the public hearings of the Senate Intelligence Committee during his eight years on the panel, according to his colleagues.

During his tenure on the committee, which provides oversight of national intelligence agencies, Kerry was absent for 38 of 49 public hearings, according to Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.

"There&#39;s been a total avoidance of discussion of the voting record of John Kerry," said Chambliss last week, following Kerry&#39;s acceptance of the Democratic presidential nomination. "But that&#39;s not surprising. There&#39;s one area that he claims to have a lot of expertise and that&#39;s in the area of national security and on the issue of terrorism."

Chambliss said Kerry&#39;s vice presidential candidate, John Edwards, is a current member of the committee, "And I&#39;ll just tell you that in the last year and a half we haven&#39;t seen a whole lot of his running mate. And I would hope that he would agree to release to you the record of his attendance at meetings and hearings of the Senate Intelligence Committee over the last year and a half, or his total service on that committee."

Chambliss also questioned some of the votes Kerry did cast.

"For example, in1993 after the World Trade Center bombing Senator Kerry introduced a number of measures that were to reduce funding for the intelligence community by &#036;7.5 billion, including a bill that he introduced in 1995 that called for the reduction in funding for the intelligence committees and intelligence communities by &#036;300 million a year for five consecutive years," he said.

Chambliss points out those five years led up to Sept. 11. Kerry did not get any co-sponsors on that bill.

"He&#39;s been in the Senate for 20 years," said Chambliss. "Nobody has come to the platform to say, &#39;This is what John Kerry has done in his 20 years in the Senate.&#39; They&#39;re not doing that because they can&#39;t do that."

[vidcc]

Originally posted by >SHOCK<^>WAVE>@4 August 2004 - 12:39

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=39752 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39752)




Wow....... that is a middle of the road site. I guess this must be a balanced report :rolleyes:

[clocker]

During those eight years how many closed hearings were there ( it being the Intelligence Committee, I&#39;ll bet they exist) and how many of those did Kerry miss?
Public hearings seem to be mostly dog and pony shows to me...does anything of merit get done in them?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@3 August 2004 - 21:43
You never did answer my question though J2. Personally I think that we’d be unstoppable combination.
As long as you can spell potato, you&#39;re my man, Hank.

Shortly we should start choosing prospective cabinet members; have you any experience in the fine art of "cabinetry"?

Better have a few new candidates lined up for the Supremes, too; they&#39;ll be dropping like flies. ;)

[j2k4]

QUOTE-VIDCC:
J2.
as someone that doesn&#39;t believe i probably don&#39;t appreciate your experience regarding religion, but i do live in Nm which is a reasonably religious area. None of the churches have sitting space if one doesn&#39;t get there early enough. I have probably the opposite to your experience....i get hassle for saying i don&#39;t believe.
Now i have never denied that i could be wrong and i would never TELL anyone that there is no GOD..... but i am not afforded the same treatment in return.
I am saddened that you feel that you are discriminated against because you hold certain beliefs.

I am positively stymied at the backlash against Christian expressions and values (that is the discriminatory part) but actually the proscriptions against religious totems of any kind is an odious practice.

Again, we are supposed to have Freedom OF Religion, and it is NOT a difficult concept to grasp.

I suppose agnostics and atheists are a bit put out at having no way to "express" themselves, but then, that is their lot: Tough Luck.

As to the race issue. We are Americans...period... What on earth is this..."i&#39;m irish American, Italian or African American", especially when many haven&#39;t stepped foot on their supposed homeland. Don&#39;t get me wrong here, ancestry is important and something to be proud of, i myself have mixed ancestors...English & American ..my wife has oriental ancestry, but be more proud of being who YOU are AN AMERICAN and not where your grandparents came from.

I agree, but only to the extent that to define one&#39;s self in this manner is used to lay claim to some irrelevant class status.

I see nothing whatsoever wrong with having pride in, and letting people know what your lineage is, but conversationally, I think it would be more correct (though redolent of klutzy syntax) to re-arrange the adjective phrase by saying "American-" first, i.e., in my own case, American German.

It saddens me that the USA, the land of freedom, needs to look at anyone differently...shame on us.

And I find it saddening that assimilation has gotten such a bad rap, and people who are "different" are so because that is the way they want it.

Immigrants need to read the fucking book, if you know what I mean; they aren&#39;t supposed to come to give the U.S. a dose of what they are all about.

Time to put the shoe back on the right foot.

On the double standard side of my beliefs i see us as humans...men and women and it saddens me that we have to call ourselves anything at all...we are citizens of the world.

We are "citizens of the world" only by geographic circumstance, vid.

Such grandiose, pie-in-the-sky phraseology can only lose it&#39;s naivete when everyone in the world feels the same way, and lives a life reflective of that same belief.

It won&#39;t be true in our lifetime.

I know that racism exists and i hate it and the USA in many areas has a shameful past and indeed present, but to me i don&#39;t see a black man...i see a man, an equal.

Once again, I agree, but it is high time all minorities (but especially blacks) celebrate the progress and equality they&#39;ve achieved, and forego the "victim" status favored by such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and tell them to stick their race-baiting and perpetuating tactics up their asses.

This is not to say the battle of racism has been won, far from it-but nobody should be fomenting the notion that things are "as bad as ever".

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by j2k4@4 August 2004 - 21:32
And I find it saddening that assimilation has gotten such a bad rap, and people who are "different" are so because that is the way they want it.
somebody forgot to send the memo to these guys.

http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/9347/amish.jpg

to any amish people who may be reading this on their kerosene-powered computers: assimilate, damn you&#33;&#33;1&#33; you, the cajuns, puerto ricans, etc are setting a bad example for the newbies&#33;&#33;&#33;

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by j2k4+4 August 2004 - 23:54--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 4 August 2004 - 23:54)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-BigBank_Hank@3 August 2004 - 21:43
You never did answer my question though J2. Personally I think that we’d be unstoppable combination.
As long as you can spell potato, you&#39;re my man, Hank.

Shortly we should start choosing prospective cabinet members; have you any experience in the fine art of "cabinetry"?

Better have a few new candidates lined up for the Supremes, too; they&#39;ll be dropping like flies. ;) [/b][/quote]
All we need now is someone to finance the campaign. I don’t suppose you’re married to a billionaire?

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4@4 August 2004 - 23:32
Again, we are supposed to have Freedom OF Religion, and it is NOT a difficult concept to grasp.

I suppose agnostics and atheists are a bit put out at having no way to "express" themselves, but then, that is their lot: Tough Luck.[/color][/i]

yes J2 and all i was pointing out that i have the opposite experience.
I don&#39;t feel any need to "express" myself as an athiest, all i want is the right to hold my views to myself (isn&#39;t that what you want? ). I don&#39;t feel discriminated against in life for my views, just hassled sometimes.
However if you want freedom "of" (and i think you should have it) then you shouldn&#39;t have the " tough luck" attitude to those that differ.
I want freedom of religion and i would go to war to preserve that freedom but i don&#39;t wan&#39;t to be told I have to live my life in a certain way Because it says so in the bible or koran.
I have in the past joined in fund raising activities for churches, financially and physically.... But i haven&#39;t joined in with the prayer.


And I find it saddening that assimilation has gotten such a bad rap, and people who are "different" are so because that is the way they want it.

I was more pointing to the need for things such as the political parties chasing the "balck/hispanic" vote but it is a two sided coin and yes you are correct about some groups wanting it that way and this is why i went to the lengths to say with the caps lock on we are AMERICANS.

Immigrants need to read the fucking book, if you know what I mean; they aren&#39;t supposed to come to give the U.S. a dose of what they are all about.


I agree only slightly.
At what point did the USA become set in stone. Should we have always had that attitude thereby have us following the native American way of life? of course not.
Immigrants are what made this country what it is. They don&#39;t have the right to change the USA to make it a mirror copy of their homeland, (although we don&#39;t mind doing that to certain other countries ourselves), but they can bring fresh ideas and improvements.
We have a great country here, doesn&#39;t mean we are perfect


[i][color=blue]We are "citizens of the world" only by geographic circumstance, vid.

Such grandiose, pie-in-the-sky phraseology can only lose it&#39;s naivete when everyone in the world feels the same way, and lives a life reflective of that same belief.

It won&#39;t be true in our lifetime.

I agree totally, all you have done is expand on something i wrote here.I wasn&#39;t being naive just pointing out something sad about humans.

[j2k4]

Touchy, touchy, vid. :D

First: "Tough Luck"-What I meant was that an atheist might suffer a modicum of difficulty summoning a phrase expressive of that particular point of view: "I don&#39;t believe in Deities&#33;", for example, would seem to lack that particular oomph so often sought by the rhetorical point-makers in today&#39;s society.

I also think I was perhaps unclear as to my definition of "assimilation"; at this point, I&#39;d settle for a recognition that English should be accepted as THE primary language by ALL immigrants, and that they abide our laws.

If they feel compelled to practice their cultural mores, who am I to complain?

I myself spring from a particularly intelligent wellspring of Teutonic blood; luckily, coherent thought and discourse have not been totally forsaken in America-I would hate to have to evince stupidity in order to "jine up" .

BTW-I know you&#39;re not being naive, but unless I put that one right in your wheelhouse, you&#39;d not have the opportunity to point out the fact to others. :D

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4@5 August 2004 - 14:22
I also think I was perhaps unclear as to my definition of "assimilation"; at this point, I&#39;d settle for a recognition that English should be accepted as THE primary language by ALL immigrants, and that they abide our laws.


i wasn&#39;t being touchy...it&#39;s a pity that we can&#39;t really get a level of the "tone" used typing. :D

Yes this clears it up completely and i agree 100%, it wasn&#39;t so obvious at first and frankly i had to read the intial post a few times to believe what i thought i was reading and check to see who posted it :blink:



BTW-I know you&#39;re not being naive, but unless I put that one right in your wheelhouse, you&#39;d not have the opportunity to point out the fact to others.&nbsp; :D

thanks for looking over me dad :lol: now can i have my allowance???? :angry: :lol:

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by j2k4@5 August 2004 - 12:22
I also think I was perhaps unclear as to my definition of "assimilation"; at this point, I&#39;d settle for a recognition that English should be accepted as THE primary language by ALL immigrants, and that they abide our laws.

If they feel compelled to practice their cultural mores, who am I to complain?
is that really j2k4? i almost thought i was reading a post by a flaming liberal, for a sec. :lol:

the term "assimilation" in the u.s. does have a way of invoking the classic image of an immigrant chopping his family tree down and throwing it out with the bathwater &#39;cause he so enthusiastically desires to be an unhyphenated american, though.

[j2k4]

Listen-

Many of those who were part of the "Grand Wave" of American immigrants (by this I mean the Europeans who entered through Ellis Island) were denigrated as cultural stereotypes, and as a result subliminated their racial identities when mixing with other races or generational cohorts.

That these characteristics are currently "worn" more openly doesn&#39;t bother me in the least, but insofar as some of the "clannish" behaviors still present barriers to interracial interaction, it would be well that expectations were raised, instead of do-gooders sponsoring such nonsense as Spanish curriculum, multilingual signs everywhere you look, etc.

America grew up without having to mollycoddle her immigrants; why are we doing it now?

Perhaps it&#39;s a sidelight of the circumstance of illegal immigration; i.e., "How can we expect non-naturalized races to get along otherwise?"

As some here would say, poppycock&#33;

[3RA1N1AC]

i&#39;m honestly not challenging you on this. you stand where you stand, i stand where i stand, the twain might never meet and that&#39;s alright. i agree with you in part, i disagree in part, i&#39;d turn out early to cast a vote for a legal compromise if it meant putting an end to the discontent. i&#39;ll accept that the assimilation of bygone days isn&#39;t necessarily the assimilation of today, but the term has also fallen far enough out of fashion that it hasn&#39;t had much chance to acquire a kinder & gentler reputation.

one side of my family tree goes back only about 4 generations thanks to the "that&#39;s it, forget the old country, i&#39;m Joe American now" tradition, and it just plain sucks. but i can&#39;t say that i don&#39;t enjoy communicating in english, in my predominantly english-speaking country, with other people who speak english, about things that we english-speakers are mutually interested in. so i do sympathize. merely trying to add a bit of humor to a sore subject, here, though maybe not successfully. just ribbing ya. no offense intended at all toward the present company, not by any means. peace? ;)

[j2k4]

Why, shoooore. ;)