I <3 Torrid. ;)
Printable View
I <3 Torrid. ;)
That is a good picture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ktul
Tell me you don't believe everything you see on TV.. Considering "The History Channel" is in direct affiliation with NBC and ABC.. We all know what party they are rooting for =P.Quote:
Originally Posted by Torrid
Well personally I don't believe everything I see on tv, although I will say that I do believe the footage of bush saying one thing, and then when questioned about it denying he ever said it.
The people that defend Bush know he's lied. They just choose to ignore it. He misquotes and takes Kerry statements out of context to try and make people outraged, and people buy into it. He relies on his supporters to blindly believe him and not actually do research.
We all have our beliefs, and lets face it... Americans with few exceptions vote along party lines. If you are republican you will vote republican regardless of who the candidate is, the same goes with democrats.
A big portion of the rest of the world dislikes the US. It used to be due to arrogant travellers (unfortunately it doesn't matter that the majority of American travellers are great people, the few bad or stupid ones ruin it for everyone). Now its due to the arrogant belief of the current president that America is the world's policeman.
Originally before he was in power he was against that sort of behaviour, but he has quickly changed his tune. All it is accomplishing is creating a gulf of dislike that affects all Americans.
I can't say that Kerry will be any better, we can't really know unless he wins and we see. What we do know is how Bush will act (regardless of what he says).
Pretty well sums up the entire discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by BurnemWizfyre
Since not playing EQ I have done some extensive reading. One book inparticular is notable not for the story, conspiracy, or propaganda it contains, but for the examples of how easily the masses can be manipulated by those in power. The book is The lluminati, by Larry Burkett. Not to be confused with many other books similar in title.
I believe that no matter what party holds the White House, the same people who hold real power and money will be putting the same pressures on any President. This would be hard to argue. I have always favored the Republican party. Due to Bush telling me Iraq was packed with WMD's and Al Qaeda cells, due to the knowledge that information to the contrary was ignored and pushed to the back, and the fact that it was all a lie by the President to the American people and to the world. I have to not vote for Bush. Kerry has not lied to me yet. Odds are he will prove just as disgusting as Bush, but for now I'll settle for someone with whom the entire world including myself does not already despise as a liar.
Hi btw.
Funny, I always considered the history channel to be more conservative than anything. Considering half their content is about war, glorifying America (not that I object), and another quarter about guns and weapons. Then there were the anti-saddam programs that all but justified the war. For the record I am glad that SOB is gone, but how it was done was wrong.
Can't really say war is a democratic or republican thing anyway, Torrid. Kennedy and Johnson (Vietnam) were democrats, as was FDR (WW2), while George H.W. Bush (Persian Gulf) was a republican. Its just that this time its the republicans.
I think its kind of funny how the republican party pretty much condemned what Clinton was doing in Kosovo and Iraq, and now take it about a million steps further.
Anyway, yeah, I'm not sure who to vote for (between Nader and Kerry). Kansas is going to Bush, so my vote's not likely going to count anyway, except in local elections.
Lothbath, the reason Clinton wasn't allowed to bomb Kosovo (or any of the other places he bombed) is because he got head from an intern. I thought this was common knowledge?
Here, let me simplify it: Head from intern + Military Action = Republican outcry.
Conversely: Terrorist Attack from Nation A + Military Action Against Nation B = He's resolute and steadfast.
This is pretty simple calculus here people!
ROFL Ktul that picture crakced me up :)
Bush's administration is the entire REASON 9/11 happened. They were given infromation from the CIA indicating that al queda was planning to hijack planes and use them as weapons. They were told that they had their people in the US learning how to fly the damn planes but they ignored the information.
While I think they did the right thing in Afghanistan, Iraq was wrong. They sent a lot of US soldiers to die in a war that wasn't even necessary. Colin Powell (spelling), shortly after bush won the election, stated on television that Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction and was not a threat. Then they just changed their minds?
Add in the fact that Bush uses the American constitution as his toilet paper and it baffles me than anyone would even consider voting for him a second time. He tries to enforce his own religious beliefs on the country, which in itself is unconstitutional.
Ignored? I don't know if you can say that. I believe there was a large invesitigation done that stated the administration and the CIA did everything reasonably possible to counter any of the threats they were perceiving at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tilea
You cannot blame the newly instated Bush administration for 9/11. They didn't hijack the planes and fly them into the towers. If you're going to blame an administration you must blame the Clinton administration for their failings the previous four years which led up to the 9/11 attacks.
http://votergasm.com/pledgeheader5.jpg
the best idea ever
I can.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maegwin
Check some of the names at the bottom of the letters and the dates. They were just waiting for something to happen. Based on the letters, I think we were eventually going into Iraq with or without 9/11.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
"In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy."
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqletter1998.htm
"U.S. policy should have as its explicit goal removing Saddam Hussein's regime from power and establishing a peaceful and democratic Iraq in its place."
Nooooooooooooooooooooo!! Et tu Andy? Say you aren't voting for Bush! Say it isn't so!! :( :( :( :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Maegwin
I'm on the fence.
How many cabinet level meetings on terrorism did the Bush administration have in the 9 months prior to 9/11? Zero! This despite the fact Richard Clarke was practically begging to have one, and Clinton on his way out warned the administration that their biggest worry was going to be terrorism. I think saying that Bush and Co. are to blame for 9/11 is a little strong (I would think the people to blame are the ones who planned and carried out the attack), but they basically got into office and proceeded to slap their hands over their ears and scream 'NYA NYA NYA NYA NYA NYA NYA" every time someone mentioned terrorism to them.
As far as saying it's Clinton's fault because the plans were hatched and put into place on his watch, that's unfair as well. What happened when Clinton authorized an attack on what were believed to be Al Qaeda training camps in Sudan and Afghanistan with cruise missiles? Every major media outlet and pundit screaming "WAG THE DOG, WAG THE DOG" and saying he was just trying to distract from the Lewinsky bullshit. Because the Republicans were so willing and eager to do anything to tar Clinton, they turned him into a lame duck President who couldn't do a damn thing about terrorism without the public perception being that he was doing it only for personal gain.
And that's kind of ironic, considering who is sitting in the VP's office now, isn't it?
I just think it sucks that "the lesser of two evils" needed to be used in this discussion...
><
LMAO, who was responsible for the tower bombings in 1993? UNDER CLINTON's admin!!! (ya same guys)Quote:
Bush's administration is the entire REASON 9/11 happened.
Lets face it, no matter who wins, people will hate the U.S.A. We will always have fucktards that want us to burn in hell. If ANY of you think that Kerry or any other canidate in the next 20-30 years will change that...well here is your wake-up call for you.
Ya Bush lied to get us in a war(but Saddam did kill his own ppl with WMD's)...Personally if Saddam tried to assasinate my dad, I'd be pissed & out for his head too. On top of that we have Oil interests there.
As for calling up reserve troops? ...Ya...thank Clinton, cause we had one hell of a military coming out of the cold war with Regan.
Economy being blamed on Bush? Are you kidding me? If us Americans could have went about our normal lives after 9/11 we wouldn't have seen any* downfalls to the economy during Bush's 4 years...but NO...we all stopped traveling, stopped spending, and WE...the consumers of the U.S. did it to ourselves.
I dunno, for a guy that has 3 purple hearts, you would think that the man would have voted to get our guys body armor...but he did not, and I think that says just about all we need to know about how this man will run our military and forieghn relations...without a backbone.
Bush is not the best man for the job, I will admit that, but Kerry is WAY too shady to be the MOST powerful man in the world.
The best thing we could do for the United States, if we ever want a good man/woman leading our country...is to put a salery cap on the presidency~
Yes, lets impeach Clinton for lying about sexual relations, but it's perfectly fine for Bush's lie to start a war that wouldn't have otherwise happened.
Frankly, the fact that so many people hate Bush makes him a bad leader. Someone should put a nice framed poster up in the oval office that reads: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Hussein used WMD's... in the Iran-Iraq war against civilian targets in Iran. He killed hundreds of thousands of people. However he chose the right enemy to fight at the right time, the US wanted a country to act as a buffer against Iran. In fact Reagan handpicked someone to go meet with Saddam Hussein, Donald Rumsfeld.
http://conscience.notfrisco2.com/arc...hake-thumb.jpg
Rumsfeld sure didn't care about those WMD's Saddam had then, but of course they were being used to murder Iranians then. President Reagan had Iraq removed from the list of countries supporting terrorism; even though Iraq continued to provided training facilities to the PLO, Hamas, and other Palestinian terrorists. This paved the way for better relations and weapon sales in the mid to late 80's. When Hussein gassed several Kurdish villages in norther Iraq in 1988 it was no small surprise, but it was basically business as usual with the Reagan administration. In fact Reagan said that
Of course this opinion all changed when Iraq invaded Kuwait. The US and it's allies of course won a resounding victory against Iraq and sanctions were put in place to contain them. However not everything was working quite so well. There was corruption in the oil for food program that allowed Hussein to launder millions of dollars and use that to keep his regime propped up. Many corporations were involved in this as well French, Russian, and.... American. Several subsidiaries of Hailburton profited greatly from this, including Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co. which sold millions of dollars of equipment to Iraq through a French subsidiary. They would have sold more but several contracts were blocked by the Clinton administration because they violated sanctions put in place against Iraq.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan
Meanwhile in the mid and late 80's the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was not going so well. The Soviet controlled the cities but outside of them it was difficult because US funded and supplied Mujaheddin would ambush Soviet troops at every opportunity and then melt away into the countryside. Coincidently enough one of the better Mujaheddin commanders on the US payroll was the son of a Saudi billionaire by the name of Osama Bin Ladin. Another group of US supported mujaheddin included a group calling themselves "The Taliban" which means students of Islamic knowledge. After the Soviet withdrawl from Afghanistan their puppet government collapsed and a civil war ensued. The Taliban ultimately prevailed, except for a few enclaves of resistant. It surprised noone when Osama Bin Ladin and his group of religious fanatics continued to operate out of Afghanistan.
The Bush administration is full of the dolts that gave us the problems in Iraq and Afghanistan; Rumsfeld and Cheney being the two worst of them. When confronted with proof of it they brush it off as if it's inconsequential or act as if they don't remember it. They took the worst thing that's happend to the US in the past 100 years and tout it as Bush's greatest success and how it "helped him find his voice". They tried to tie 9/11 to Iraq even though the CIA and Wesley Clarke were screaming that it was Al Qaeda. Then when they can't make the Iraq link stick they reluctantly invade Afghanistan by proxy, by funding and supporting warlords who are just as bad as the Taliban but less successful. Then they leave the job half finished after promising us justice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by George W. Bush
Then they start trying to build a case for a war in Iraq. Which isn't surprising since Rumsfeld and his cronies in the PNAC have been foaming at the mouth for a second war in Iraq for over a decade. They refused to share this damning evidence that proves Iraq has WMD's. No photo's, no testimony under oath, no samples, nothing. They were banking on going into Iraq and finding tons of Al Qaeda camps and WMD's all over the place. They found squat. Then it turns out we were buying information from the people we isntalled as the Iraqi governing council, Colin Powell lied to the UN (Where are those trucks Mr. Hussein... oh the photo's were taken 10 years apart...), and Bush lied to the American people about how much it would cost and how long it would take.Quote:
Originally Posted by George W. Bush
I can't see how anyone could vote for Bush. I don't like Kerry but Bush is the worst president we've had since Nixon.
That's your justification for sacrificing the lives of over 1000 US soldiers and counting, plus tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians??? Revenge because of daddy and oil??Quote:
Originally Posted by Azis