I know it's early but......

[southsider2k5]

OMG, I didn't know mega dittos had anything to do with calling someone anti-semetic. I guess I need to listen to Rush more often.

Well if you follow the pattern of hands over your ears posting whatever cutdown you can think of... anti-semite seemed like a good bet for what came next. Meanwhile when you want to get back to a conversation that consists of than mega-dittos, let me know.

[Texsox]

Well if you follow the pattern of hands over your ears posting whatever cutdown you can think of... anti-semite seemed like a good bet for what came next.  Meanwhile when you want to get back to a conversation that consists of than mega-dittos, let me know.

Yesterday on 9/11 I finally have seen the light. Bush inherited a terrible economy set to self destruct, a military that couldn't defend anything and terrible moral, a gutted intelligence program. America was just about to be destroyed if that great man from Texas, George W. Bush hadn't rode into our lives. In fact 2000 was probably the lowest point in Americas history. Perhaps even lower then when Carter or Kennedy were President. And I hadn't even mentioned that Iraq and Lybia were all set to annihilate us, something that would have happened if Gore had won. And as Chaney pointed out last week, will happen in a heartbeat if Kerry is elected.

 

I've been reading the Rush web site, signed up for Rush 24/7 and the Limbaugh Report, decided that deficit spending to stimulate the economy is cool, (let someone else pay the money back after the economy grows), and can't wait to see the Hannitization of America. I'm so happy I want to Mega Dittos everyone. I want to build more prisons to get tough on crime and pay for them by cutting back on treatment programs for drug addicts. They can stop cold turkey. I want to tell people who they can and cannot marry. I want to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. I too want that smug feeling of mega dittos with everything conservative.

 

Everything I need to know about the media is here at Rush's web site. This is too important not to share.

[soxman352000]

http://www.time.com/time/election2004/arti...00.html?cnn=yes

 

I rather enjoyed this read.

Lets not get to cocky Nuke, Bush isn't out of the woods yet. There is still time for this thing to turn

[soxfan420]

all i know is im voting for BUSH the man has a set of big gaunas in between his legs and i think a president needs those to be a good one, he isnt gonna bend over and take it up the ass like kerry would.

 

I think some people think there can be a perfect president but you know what you are always gonna piss someone off if you are doing your job so........(apu etc.) get over you are out of luck this next 4 years.

[Texsox]

all i know is im voting for BUSH the man has a set of big gaunas in between his legs and i think a president needs those to be a good one, he isnt gonna bend over and take it up the ass like kerry would.

 

I think some people think there can be a perfect president but you know what you are always gonna piss someone off if you are doing your job so........(apu etc.) get over you are out of luck this next 4 years.

Mega Mega Dittos to that. Kerry would have Ho Chi Mihn living in Times Square by March. And when a puss like Kerry is taking it up his ass, so are we. We need a President with a "set of big gaunas in between his legs" that isn't afraid to send our military into North Korea and kick their asses before their nukes get going. It may take 10X a 1,000 lives but Bush is the MAN to do it.

[The Bones]

Indeed, it takes some big guanas to send other parents children over to be killed and also to kill more innocent civilians, making us no-better than the "evil-doers" as G-Dub likes to say. In the process totally f***ing up our relations with the entire world, while the man who planned 9/11 is still chillin' somewhere in the Middle East.

 

God Bless America...and only America.

 

4 more years for the f***-up with big guanas.

[Texsox]

Indeed, it takes some big guanas to send other parents children over to be killed and also to kill more innocent civilians, making us no-better than the "evil-doers" as G-Dub likes to say. In the process totally f***ing up our relations with the entire world, while the man who planned 9/11 is still chillin' somewhere in the Middle East.

 

God Bless America...and only America.

 

4 more years for the f***-up with big guanas.

President George W. Bush isn't sending over children, he is sending over adults who volunteered for this duty. Why not support our Troops and allow them to do their jobs? The other side uses children as terrorists and suicide bombers. We are taking out kids for our and society's safety. Unfortunately that comes with the war on terror. America Love it or Leave it.

[Heads22]

all i know is im voting for BUSH the man has a set of big gaunas in between his legs and i think a president needs those to be a good one, he isnt gonna bend over and take it up the ass like kerry would.

 

I think some people think there can be a perfect president but you know what you are always gonna piss someone off if you are doing your job so........(apu etc.) get over you are out of luck this next 4 years.

It's not just Apu that he's pissing off. It's also about half the nation and a good chunk of the world.

[soxfan420]

It's not just Apu that he's pissing off.  It's also about half the nation and a good chunk of the world.

only the some muslim countrys, and a couple communist countrys. no biggy if it means protecting U.S. soil.

[CrimsonWeltall]

haha it's just Europe, the Middle East, and Asia

 

we've still got the only ally that matters: Israel

[soxfan420]

haha it's just Europe, the Middle East, and Asia

 

we've still got the only ally that matters: Israel

last i checked Russia, England, the list goes on, dont listen to the media trying to strike fear into the U.S. citizens(people get scared so they watch the news 24/7 so they scare them while watching the news so they just keep coming back), listen to ME.(just kidding) but in all seriousness we still have plenty of allys they just dont back us on Iraq but they all sent troops, to afganistan.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

last i checked Russia, England, the list goes on, dont listen to the media trying to strike fear into the U.S. citizens(people get scared so they watch the news 24/7 so they scare them while watching the news so they just keep coming back), listen to ME.(just kidding) but in all seriousness we still have plenty of allys they just dont back us on Iraq  but they all sent troops, to afganistan.

Would those military powerhouses be Morocco, Palau and the other host of small countries that make up the vast majority of the Coalition of the Willing that sent no soldiers to Iraq?

 

And if you've been reading the British press, Blair has been taking a beating from the conservative and liberal parties and he is most likely gonna be out of a job as Prime Minister. Other countries don't like it when their leaders lie to them about a threat (i.e. Spain)

 

And as for only radical liberals like me getting pissed off by Bush, perhaps you should check out statements made by Ron Paul (R-TX) in the House of Representatives or Colin Powell calling them "f***ing crazies" amongst numerous others throughout the world.

 

The flagrant disregard for other countries has alienated the US from the rest of the world and has actually caused more harm in the anti-terrorism effort.

 

So, 420...I'm trying to get your logic. You're attacked by a radical fundamentalist Islamic douchebag so the only viable course of action is attacking and occupying a very secular anti-fundamentalist regime that did not work with AQ or attack the US or was even the slightest bit of a threat to the US?

 

If Bush was really true about WMD and threats, then what about N. Korea or getting Israel to be more open about it's profileration of a secret nuke program etc. etc. etc.?

[soxfan420]

we went into iraq to free them from suddan who has killed many more iraqi citizens than we have by mistake, as soon has we rebuild it right we are out of there, if you think leaving suddan in power was what we should have done you are not the humanitarion i thought you where.

[soxfan420]

The flagrant disregard for other countries has alienated the US from the rest of the world and has actually caused more harm in the anti-terrorism effort.

first off i could give a flying f*** about france and willie blair, second where is your proof that we are causing more of a threat.

 

So if you where in prison you would let someone bend you over so next time they might not go for you again??? is that what you are saying or would you put up a fight and even if you lose you still tryed to stop it.

[CrimsonWeltall]

we went into iraq to free them from suddan who has killed many more iraqi citizens than we have by mistake

 

...no we didn't. We went to Iraq because Saddam was ready to use WMDs, was building new ones, was an imminent threat, and 'could not be distinguished' from Al Queda in the war on terror.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

we went into iraq to free them from suddan who has killed many more iraqi citizens than we have by mistake, as soon has we rebuild it right we are out of there, if you think leaving suddan in power was what we should have done you are not the humanitarion i thought you where.

Is Suddan the same as "Saddam"?

 

As for the weapons that he was using against his own civilians, former State Department member William Blum has written ""You cannot defy the will of the world," the President proclaimed. "You have used weapons of mass destruction before. We are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again."

 

Most Americans listening to the President did not know that the United States supplied Iraq with much of the raw material for creating a chemical and biological warfare program. Nor did the media report that U.S. companies sold Iraq more than $1 billion worth of the components needed to build nuclear weapons and diverse types of missiles, including the infamous Scud.

 

When Iraq engaged in chemical and biological warfare in the 1980s, barely a peep of moral outrage could be heard from Washington, as it kept supplying Saddam with the materials he needed to build weapons."

 

Rest of the article is here: http://www.progressive.org/0901/anth0498.html

 

And if you want to get into "He killed more by mistake", actually the blood of the civilians he murdered is on our hands because our government sold him the weapons that he used during the 1980s to abuse/murder his citizens and since the 1960s, PBS and other news organizations have cemented the fact that the CIA was involved getting and keeping Saddam in power since he was a guy we could use. (Just like we us with Noriega) And what about Bush's claim that the oil was going to pay for the rebuilding effort? It's not. It's US taxpayers. As for "If we revoke our troops, it'll be chaos" argument. Yeah, chaos compared to what they have now? The fact remains that this war was not done for "humanitarian" reasons. The reasons were introduced by PNAC in 1997 -- control of Mid-East oil supplies and a tactical pivot for future invasions of Syria, Saudia Arabia and Egypt. (This fact was reaffirmed in 2004 at a neo-conservative lecture by heads of the policy makers).

 

And for the AQ terror threat increasing, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (a well respected centrist group) stated that attacking Iraq would increase terrorism against America. AQ has made statements wanting Bush to be elected because the bombing campaigns/murder/torture of civilians makes for easy recruitment of new AQ members. Also, the very conservative right wing Cato Institute came out with a report saying that Iraq has caused us to be alienated, that terror threat has increased and that AQ membership has increased because of our invasion of Iraq. Worse, evidence from the Senate committee report revealed that the Bush administration willingly put the U.S. in greater danger by attacking Iraq. Intelligence Committee member Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) summed up the terrorist threat from Iraq: "The Intelligence Community did not believe that Saddam Hussein was likely to use his own forces or an outside group like al Qaeda to attack the United States – with one important caveat. The Intelligence Community believed that an impending U.S.-led attack to remove Hussein from power would increase the likelihood of a terror attack."

 

As for allies, it's more than France. Here's the coalition of the unwilling:

Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Cuba, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Jordan, Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Russia, S. Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe and 103 other countries.

 

As for the Coalition of the Willing, the main countries like Australia were put on board after a free trade agreement was dangled in front of their PM by the Bushies. (If you can't get them on board, bribe them) The Coaltion of the Willing countries make up, approximate, 20% of the world population and in many of those countries, the majority of their populations were against the purely elective war against Iraq.

 

As for your prison analogy, where is the evidence that Saddam attacked us the first time? And don't even say the Gulf War because Kuwait's slant drilling of Iraq and flooding the market with oil was the reasoning behind Iraq's invasion. This was coupled with US Ambassador April Glaspie telling Saddam that the US "had no stance" on their dispute. Since GHWB wanted to get rid of "Vietnam Syndrome" he decided to renig on that policy he had in place of no stance and then invaded Iraq, kicking the s*** out of a 3rd world army.

[soxfan420]

so just because he didnt attack us means we should let it go on, we created him we have the right to take him out, i would feel like s*** if our government didnt fix our mistakes, by giving that mad man weapons, but isnt there an oth or something about defending the the U.S. and the weak??? idk the quotes are your department.

 

But i see you wouldnt want to fix a leak before there was a flood.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

so just because he didnt attack us means we should let it go on, we created him we have the right to take him out, i would feel like s*** if our government didnt fix our mistakes, by giving that mad man weapons, but isnt there an oth or something about defending the the U.S. and the weak??? idk the quotes are your department.

 

But i see you wouldnt want to fix a leak before there was a flood.

Really? All I saw that Saddam was a threat to the US was -- oh wait, he was not a threat to the US in any proportion, especially the bulls*** that the neo-conservatives shoved down peoples' throats about nuclear weapons et al.

 

The idea of pre-emptive warfare has been condemned internationally as a war crime. The idea was first used during the Nuremburg tribunals when they were trying former members of the Nazi party for war crimes. The Nazis tried to justify their blatant imperialism and greed by saying it was "pre-emptive" and "preventative". Unfortunately for them, there was no evidence showing any of the countries that were conquered would have invaded Germany, so their defense was destroyed. Pre-emptive and pre-ventative warfare is not a legitimate cause for war and has been destroyed by the Nuremburg legal precedent. But if you want to advocate an already destroyed policy created by Nazis, be my guest.

 

The United States does not have free reign to go into a country, depose their leadership and start an occupation when that nation has not done anything to the US.

 

The real leak is Al Qaeda and the proliferation of it which has been made much easier due to the poor invasion of Iraq. As the many independent and conservative think tanks and policy gurus point out, the invasion has caused the threat of terrorism to increase. There are better ways to fight global terrorism than invading a 3rd world country that was not a terrorist threat.