Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: 240 is Back on January 15, 2007, 10:11:29 PM
-
We don't know why we hate them! lol...
I've been asking people to tell me 3 reasons why they hate so-and-so, and the reasons are usually pretty vague.
If you want to bomb a nation, and they haven't attacked you, and you haven't negotiated with them, and the WMD intel is all over the place, and we've actually threatened them in the media...
Well, tell us why you hate them. Why do you hate Chavez? All I know of him is that he said the US is currently invading nations that haven't attacked us (which we are), that Bush smells of sulfur (and it's well known bush enjoys fart jokes), and that 911 needs reinvestigated (which the majority of americans agree with).
So convince us. SELL us. Why is this guy the devil, and is he wrong about those 3 points above?
-
(BTW, don't be an idiot and accuse me of defending the enemy or whatever. I want clarification on WHY they're the enemy. If you know enough to determine a nation needs obliderated, you must have some purrty good reasons)
-
well rob i can tell you this the way i see it is this they are the enemy cuase they have the oil
-
They hate our freedoms... duh.
;D
-
They hate our freedoms... duh.
;D
yes they want mcdonalds too
-
yes they want mcdonalds too
Better keep their hands off my mcgriddles.
Bush has already said he'll attack whoever he needs to attack, despite the will of the people. So I'm already accepting we'll continue war in iraq and we're gonna bomb iran.
But for the good folks that call these countries enemies, I just wanna know why. I know ahmedijad has said some nasty things, okay. He's a prick, sure. but you can't just kill millions because their leader (who doesn't carry much power compared to his own legislature) talks trash to get elected.
So tell us, what have these cats done?
-
bush now thinks he knows whats good for the people he is not even listening to them anymore it a bad situation
-
US versus THEM...
white Versus brown!
muslims baaaad.arrrrrgh.....here in the US..CIA funded..
whitie baad...in paki..ISI/CIA funded....
lots n lots n lots of $ being made..last time i ws in dubai i saw 12 yr old kiddies driving ferraris on the beach///truse story..i went to watch a cric match...
yanno growing up as a muzzie kid..my first make out experience ws with my christian tutors teen daughter.she ws 18..i ws 12...
ahh memories..
bad christians... >:( fox would have you believe christians in paki/karachi r killed on sight... ::)
lol./.phuleese..
-
We don't know why we hate them! lol...
I've been asking people to tell me 3 reasons why they hate so-and-so, and the reasons are usually pretty vague.
If you want to bomb a nation, and they haven't attacked you, and you haven't negotiated with them, and the WMD intel is all over the place, and we've actually threatened them in the media...
Well, tell us why you hate them. Why do you hate Chavez? All I know of him is that he said the US is currently invading nations that haven't attacked us (which we are), that Bush smells of sulfur (and it's well known bush enjoys fart jokes), and that 911 needs reinvestigated (which the majority of americans agree with).
So convince us. SELL us. Why is this guy the devil, and is he wrong about those 3 points above?
Venezuela Dictator VosT Bring Down U.S. Government
Venezuela government is sole owner of Citgo gasoline company
Venezuela Dictator Hugo Chavez has vowed to bring down the U.S. government. Chavez, president of Venezuela, told a TV audience : "Enough of imperialist aggression; we must tell the world: down with the U.S. empire. We have to bury imperialism this century." The guest on his television program, beamed across Venezuela, was Cindy Sheehan, the antiwar activist. Chavez recently had as his guest Harry Belafonte, who called President Bush "the greatest terrorist in the world." Chavez is pushing a socialist revolution and has a close alliance with Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. Regardless of your feelings about the war in Iraq, the issue here is that we have a socialist dictator vowing to bring down the government of the U.S. And he is using our money to achieve his goal! The Venezuela government, run by dictator Chavez, is the sole owner of Citgo gas company. Sales of products at Citgo stations send money back to Chavez to help him in his vow to bring down our government.
that's why
-
Yup, Down with imperialism, I agree. That is not the US Gov or should I say it should not be the policy of the US Gov. End Imperialism, I agree with Chavez as usual :) Many many people in America do and I'll find righties who agree too... End Empire and End Imperialism this century.
A vow to end imperialism is not a vow to end the US Government. That's fooey.
This is why he's an "enemy"
http://propagandamatrix.com/articles/november2006/271106chavezderails.htm
http://www.prisonplanet.com/jones_report_110402_palast.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2005/300305hugochavez.htm
-
It's easier to hate or kill something you don't know.
In the Japanese US war a Lieutenant wrote in his diary, that he discovered that the "Japs" did not have the same heart we have, he found this out by inspected freshly killed Japanese Soldiers.
If you think of something less than an animal, if it has no value to you at all it's easy to kill.
Same thing we do in the middle east, it helps that they tend to look a little different to us.
-
Yup, Down with imperialism, I agree. That is not the US Gov or should I say it should not be the policy of the US Gov. End Imperialism, I agree with Chavez as usual :) Many many people in America do and I'll find righties who agree too... End Empire and End Imperialism this century.
A vow to end imperialism is not a vow to end the US Government. That's fooey.
Venezuela Dictator Hugo Chavez has vowed to bring down the U.S. government.
does he need to paint you a picture.
does his comment not scream imperialisim?? how else would he bring down the US govt? with lollipops.
no straight thinking American should defend this man. if they do, please take the first flight to Venezuela.
-
wait, so US imperialism is now bad?
-
Venezuela Dictator Hugo Chavez has vowed to bring down the U.S. government.
does he need to paint you a picture.
does his comment not scream imperialism?? how else would he bring down the US govt? with lollipops.
no straight thinking American should defend this man. if they do, please take the first flight to Venezuela.
You said he's bringing down the government, has he said that? I think that would be a declaration of war if he had ::) Ending imperialism is no different than what many Americans want, does that mean they're trying to bring an end to the US gov... hell no... That would put them in custody real fast. I have many many times tuned into Americans on the topic of American Imperialism and how it must end. What do you mean, does his comment not scream imperialism? I sense we're not on the same page here. :D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism
-
wait, so US imperialism is now bad?
when was it good :D
-
when was it good :D
Exactly.
People attack hugo for attacking US Imperialism.
I want to hear them first say imperialism is a good thing, and defend that. They're defending it by attacking Chavez, whether they know it or not.
So let's hear it folks - do you support US Imperialism in the world?
-
Exactly.
People attack hugo for attacking US Imperialism.
I want to hear them first say imperialism is a good thing, and defend that. They're defending it by attacking Chavez, whether they know it or not.
So let's hear it folks - do you support US Imperialism in the world?
more and more will say yes today than ever before.
-
imperialism
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/imperialism (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/imperialism)
1. The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
2. The system, policies, or practices of such a government.
http://www.answers.com/topic/hegemony (http://www.answers.com/topic/hegemony)
he·gem·o·ny (hĭ-jĕm'ə-nē, hĕj'ə-mō'nē) pronunciation
n., pl. -nies.
The predominant influence, as of a state, region, or group, over another or others.
IT is better that America and the West to influence other nations then it is that China or other dictatorships influence them.
-
IT is better that America and the West to influence other nations then it is that China or other dictatorships influence them.
Well, it's better that I shoot my own dog, rather than let the vet do it.
Doesn't mean I shouldn't try giving my dog medicine first, does it?
-
Well, it's better that I shoot my own dog, rather than let the vet do it.
Doesn't mean I shouldn't try giving my dog medicine first, does it?
That depends on if you like the dog. ;D
Actually that is an economic decision and would depend on the condition of the dog. If the dog had a cold medicine might help.
If the dog got hit by a car and is dying. Then you should shoot it.
-
Are we going to start singing that Beth Midler song now?
;)
-
That depends on if you like the dog. ;D
Actually that is an economic decision and would depend on the condition of the dog. If the dog had a cold medicine might help.
If the dog got hit by a car and is dying. Then you should shoot it.
The "car" was American-made. These nations were not in turmoil, neeing US intervention until we destroyed their power grids and kicked out the ruling govt.
Bush had to go the oil route, or go the alternative energy route. Given his family business, he had more motivation to follow oil. It is what it is. Maybe the next leader will do something differently.
-
The "car" was American-made. These nations were not in turmoil, neeing US intervention until we destroyed their power grids and kicked out the ruling govt.
Bush had to go the oil route, or go the alternative energy route. Given his family business, he had more motivation to follow oil. It is what it is. Maybe the next leader will do something differently.
It's our M.O.
We support govenrments that support our economic interests. If that government changes and doesn't support our interests they become our enemies one way or another.
-
I just wish all countries would be soo economically interwoven that war would be impractical.
-
The "car" was American-made. These nations were not in turmoil, neeing US intervention until we destroyed their power grids and kicked out the ruling govt.
Bush had to go the oil route, or go the alternative energy route. Given his family business, he had more motivation to follow oil. It is what it is. Maybe the next leader will do something differently.
Your talking about Iraq.
However there are many nations that need help and are looking for it from the US. Especially in Africa.
Alternative energy is all well and fine, but the amount of capital required to make any substantial gains is very limiting.
I suggest you read some policy papers on Alternative energy and not from sites like freeenergy.org or whatever.
It would really open your eyes to how tied to oil we really are.
There is no such thing is free energy. At lest GWB has started to move towards mandatory requirements for E85 fuel stations.
-
I just wish all countries would be soo economically interwoven that war would be impractical.
I agree, rich countries tend not to go to war because it is not in their best interest.
I personally feel that the WTO and free trade based on a democratic government and human rights is the only way to help to get the poor employed.
-
Alternative energy is all well and fine, but the amount of capital required to make any substantial gains is very limiting.
I suggest you read some policy papers on Alternative energy and not from sites like freeenergy.org or whatever.
It would really open your eyes to how tied to oil we really are.
If we have 400 billion to war with iraq, just for a chance at managing their oil, then we have $ to look at just how Brazil can now close their borders and never need oil again.
If they can do it, so can we.
Won't be easy, but if we do it, we will grow greatly as the middle eastern nations will slip further down thanks to the pool of gold under them suddenly becoming worthless.
-
I agree, rich countries tend not to go to war because it is not in their best interest.
Disagree.
Rich countries tend to use war to become richer.
They are the market leader on wealth. If they don't work for a 100% market share, they won't maintain the share they already have. The US is the only remaining superpower. We're entering our 3rd war.
-
If we have 400 billion to war with iraq, just for a chance at managing their oil, then we have $ to look at just how Brazil can now close their borders and never need oil again.
If they can do it, so can we.
Won't be easy, but if we do it, we will grow greatly as the middle eastern nations will slip further down thanks to the pool of gold under them suddenly becoming worthless.
America is moving in that direction.
The biggest way Brazil moved away from oil is through a real commitment to Ethanol and Biodiesel.
Ethanol is cheap in Brazil because of sugar cane and forcing manufactures to build cars that run on ethanol and Biodiesel.
Once a real infrastructure for Biofuels is established in the US, you will see a drop in fuel prices. Unless the Farmers lobby gets in the way.
-
IT is better that America and the West to influence other nations then it is that China or other dictatorships influence them.
That flawed logic will be what gets us all dead. That logic got us Korea and Vietnam. If a country is doing that such a China or Russia you deal with them directly over it... You're solution amounts to conquer the world. Some of these Nations just want to stop being used like pigs and tossed scraps for their service. America was simple not created to rule the world and dominate everyone's lives globally... Take your Canadian opinion of what we're suppose to be doing and have your own government do if it's so important to you, I guarantee you're in the minortiy in Canada with this thinking. No Imperialism is good, you can't reason that is ok for one to do it but not another. If all countires bound together in an effort to long allow it, these guys just might have a chance at controlling their own destiny and isn't that what we deny and isn't that what we all deserve as sovereign countries, to control our own destiny.
-
Disagree.
Rich countries tend to use war to become richer.
They are the market leader on wealth. If they don't work for a 100% market share, they won't maintain the share they already have. The US is the only remaining superpower. We're entering our 3rd war.
Whoops, there goes the paranoia again. Please notify me of the last two democracies to go to war with one another and in turn the last democratic nation to turn a profit from going to war. Also, considering Iran's oil reserves are far greater than Iraq's, please explain our reluctance to rape and pillage their oil rather than Iraq's? On top of this, after the '$400 bn' you have mentioned it cost the US to go to war, why then - if we are so evil - did we not just buy (which was easily possible) the dirt-cheap oil off a Saddam that was never a threat to us in the first place?
-
Disagree.
Rich countries tend to use war to become richer.
They are the market leader on wealth. If they don't work for a 100% market share, they won't maintain the share they already have. The US is the only remaining superpower. We're entering our 3rd war.
They don;t to war with each other they repress third world countries economically. When the thrid world country gets out of linewith say a revolution, then they go to war in one form or another ;)
-
They don;t to war with each other they repress third world countries economically. When the thrid world country gets out of linewith say a revolution, then they go to war in one form or another ;)
Thus the billions of dollars in aid given to these third world countries you mention ::)
-
Thus the billions of dollars in aid given to these third world countries you mention ::)
Yep and our comapnies make even more on profiting from their resources.
Example: labor costs
-
Yep and our comapnies make even more on profiting from their resources.
Example: labor costs
You'll, of course, direct me to one of these companies profiting evilly from third world nations - and then prove this profit far outstips the billions in aid.
-
Whoops, there goes the paranoia again. Please notify me of the last two democracies to go to war with one another and in turn the last democratic nation to turn a profit from going to war. Also, considering Iran's oil reserves are far greater than Iraq's, please explain our reluctance to rape and pillage their oil rather than Iraq's? On top of this, after the '$400 bn' you have mentioned it cost the US to go to war, why then - if we are so evil - did we not just buy (which was easily possible) the dirt-cheap oil off a Saddam that was never a threat to us in the first place?
are you seriously saying that large corporations are not profiting from this war, bruce?
there is no reluctance to bomb iran - we're dying to. we just don't have a reason yet. that's why they were 3rd.
-
are you seriously saying that large corporations are not profiting from this war, bruce?
there is no reluctance to bomb iran - we're dying to. we just don't have a reason yet. that's why they were 3rd.
We don't have a reason? Try their predisposition to creating nuclear arms, try their threats against our ally, Israel - you will surely say whatever we do has sinister motivations, I don't see things so simplistically.
As for 'large corporations' profiting from the war, tell me which and why, and I will address this comment.
-
as for 'large corporations' profiting from the war, tell me which and why, and I will address this comment.
This is elementary shit here, dude. Wiki is your friend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_contractor
and more importantly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-industrial_complex
-
This is elementary shit here, dude. Wiki is your friend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_contractor
and more importantly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-industrial_complex
Ahh I see, so companies employed to rebuild Iraq are now evilly profiteering from war? Strange perspective.
-
Ahh I see, so companies employed to rebuild Iraq are now evilly profiteering from war? Strange perspective.
No, it's not strange. it happens with every war. haliburton has been busted for fraud in this iraqi war.
Weird that you seem to be overcompensating with neocon hate. Most far right people here are civil and think things through. Seems like you just blindly defend what you don't understand here.
-
No, it's not strange. it happens with every war. haliburton has been busted for fraud in this iraqi war.
Weird that you seem to be overcompensating with neocon hate. Most far right people here are civil and think things through. Seems like you just blindly defend what you don't understand here.
Okay, thanks for confirming with me you don't believe that all corporations are evilly profiteering, I appreciate your moderation on this issue. I'm actually not 'far right' as you incorrectly point out, Rob, I in fact am an Agnostic, and by definition cannot therefore be of the right. I'll expect your apolgies for labelling me as such ::)
You then accuse me of blind defence, if this is true, you should have no problem debunking me. The fact you would attack my personality rather than my argument suggests you have trouble doing this.
-
Okay, thanks for confirming with me you don't believe that all corporations are evilly profiteering, I appreciate your moderation on this issue. I'm actually not 'far right' as you incorrectly point out, Rob, I in fact am an Agnostic, and by definition cannot therefore be of the right. I'll expect your apolgies for labelling me as such ::)
You then accuse me of blind defence, if this is true, you should have no problem debunking me. The fact you would attack my personality rather than my argument suggests you have trouble doing this.
lol. You don't hang around this board much do you? :) Not uncommon at all. If you keep posting here you'll not only be labeled a "necon" (whatever that means), you'll be someone who only gets his information from Fox News; nothing but a Bush crony. :)
-
lol. You don't hang around this board much do you? :) Not uncommon at all. If you keep posting here you'll not only be labeled a "necon" (whatever that means), you'll be someone who only gets his information from Fox News; nothing but a Bush crony. :)
Haha yes, we know the left finds it far easier to argue with name-calling and abuse rather than sound logic and facts.
-
240 u have finally lost it. Its the "can't we all get long idea" that causes all the problems in the first place. These people are bad folks plain and simple. You have to get past this one big happy family mentality. Its us against them. None of these people u feel so sorry for would allow u to come on an internet board and spew the crap that u do...they'd find ur IP and come visit u in the middle of the night. You guys all bitch how bad we are but besides vactions how many of you have spent time outside the US. Most of the rest of the world is a dangerous shithole... These people all hate us because we have our shit togther and can crush anybody that comes along. They hated us long before 911. Who's they..anybody not us..brown/yellow/muslim..doesn't matter..I lov American and am sick of the ignorance. Stop with the Fox News crap...CNN is so far the other way but I never use that excuse. As far as evil corporations..there are plenty of socialist countries that u could move to. U could move to Germany and pay 4 bucks per gallon for gas. Or Sweden where the taxes are ridiculous.....These companies keep us going.....they cure us..entertain us....feed us. Get over it.
-
i don't believe we can all get along.
I believe treaties, sanctions, agreements, etc can be used to prevent war.
War shouldn't be the first option anymore.
-
i don't believe we can all get along.
I believe treaties, sanctions, agreements, etc can be used to prevent war.
War shouldn't be the first option anymore.
bush is using war as a first and only option now a days and anyone who disagrees is seriously living in denial
-
Not everybody plays ball..there is to much money involved. War sucks, I agree, but I would support smoking Chavez or conducting the proxy wars like we did in South American from the 1950s on.
-
Not everybody plays ball..there is to much money involved. War sucks, I agree, but I would support smoking Chavez or conducting the proxy wars like we did in South American from the 1950s on.
but why worry about Chavez when the Koreans are crazy as fuck and have nukes
-
I agree..but he has nukes(maybe) and he can b contained. Chavez has a ton of Cash and he's in what we consider our own back yard.
-
I agree..but he has nukes(maybe) and he can b contained. Chavez has a ton of Cash and he's in what we consider our own back yard.
i think the north Koreans are the ones we should be shitten about not some Muslims who have to hide in caves or a Venezuelan dictator who is loved by his people and slams the states to get re-elected
-
but why worry about Chavez when the Koreans are crazy as f**k and have nukes
there's the million dollar question!!!
WHy aren't we surrounding and nuking NKorea? They have SET OFF nukes. They have FIRED MISSILES toward the US. They have made these weapons SOLELY for the usa.
Shit, i'd support attacking them in a minute. Why won't we talk to them, and why aren't we making moves to defend ourselves? They are a way more advanced than Iran, who just started the nuke program.
-
lol. You don't hang around this board much do you? :) Not uncommon at all. If you keep posting here you'll not only be labeled a "necon" (whatever that means), you'll be someone who only gets his information from Fox News; nothing but a Bush crony. :)
That's funny, it was 240 and I that pushed home the point that being conservative does not necessarily mean you're a neoconservative so if anyone tried to say it is a catch all label for the right, it was you beach... Go back and look it up, we corrected that line as being incorrect and you seem to be conveniently ignoring that fact. Even worse you claim to not know what neocon means after we just had a very direct conversation on it... Cut this shit ok.... ::)
-
That's funny, it was 240 and I that pushed home the point that being conservative does not necessarily mean you're a neoconservative so if anyone tried to say it is a catch all label for the right, it was you beach... Go back and look it up, we corrected that line as being incorrect and you seem to be conveniently ignoring that fact. Even worse you claim to not know what neocon means after we just had a very direct conversation on it... Cut this shit ok.... ::)
Oh be quiet already. ::) Ask Ozmo what his definition of a "necon" is. ::) You don't know what the heck you're talking about. Again.
-
Oh be quiet already. ::) Ask Ozmo what his definition of a "necon" is. ::) You don't know what the heck you're talking about. Again.
::) Oh you be quiet already... He said it was "Extreme conservative views" That is an extreme oversimplification that does not do justice to what a neocon is... That makes guys like Pat Buccanan a neocon and I'll bet he and conserviatives like him would not agree for one second... It would have taken you all but 5 minutes to review the material provided... Amazing that you would glom onto a 3 word definition instead of actually read the material provided in that thread. ::) Oh brother...
-
Oh be quiet already. ::) Ask Ozmo what his definition of a "necon" is. ::) You don't know what the heck you're talking about. Again.
I recall the thread Berserker mentioned. He and I gave very detailed account of the difference between neo and traditional conservatism. They are very different beasts. Many conservatives are currently unhappy at the direction the neocon element has led us in the last 5 years. There is definitely a split in the Repub party. Facts is facts is facts.
-
there's the million dollar question!!!
WHy aren't we surrounding and nuking NKorea? They have SET OFF nukes. They have FIRED MISSILES toward the US. They have made these weapons SOLELY for the usa.
Shit, i'd support attacking them in a minute. Why won't we talk to them, and why aren't we making moves to defend ourselves? They are a way more advanced than Iran, who just started the nuke program.
The N korea situation is WAYYYY more complex than iran. For starters, they border china, and trust me china does not, and will not allow a massive US troop buildup in their backyard. Also, N korea and china are close allies, both are communist nations, and china gives n korea lots of aid. Lastly, N korea is starving to death due to un sanctions, it's well known that kim jong cannot hold his country together for too much longer. He was a HUGE army, and if we invaded, it would cost so many american lives it absurd. We are either MOABing them to death, nuking them, or starving them, but certainly not invading them. Iran is not a direct threat to us, but they ARE a VERY direct threat to our servicemen over seas, and isreal, and they have strategic positioning along our oil routes. They are a tremendous threat, and money seems to be the only thing preventing all out war.
-
::) Oh you be quiet already... He said it was "Extreme conservative views" That is an extreme oversimplification that does not do justice to what a neocon is... That makes guys like Pat Buccanan a neocon and I'll bet he and conserviatives like him would not agree for one second... It would have taken you all but 5 minutes to review the material provided... Amazing that you would glom onto a 3 word definition instead of actually read the material provided in that thread. ::) Oh brother...
Actually, I look at how people use the word, which is more important than some Wiki link on the internet. Try looking up the words "denotation" and "connotation." ::) And I won't even charge you for that.
-
The N korea situation is WAYYYY more complex than iran. For starters, they border china, and trust me china does not, and will not allow a massive US troop buildup in their backyard. Also, N korea and china are close allies, both are communist nations, and china gives n korea lots of aid. Lastly, N korea is starving to death due to un sanctions, it's well known that kim jong cannot hold his country together for too much longer. He was a HUGE army, and if we invaded, it would cost so many american lives it absurd. We are either MOABing them to death, nuking them, or starving them, but certainly not invading them. Iran is not a direct threat to us, but they ARE a VERY direct threat to our servicemen over seas, and isreal, and they have strategic positioning along our oil routes. They are a tremendous threat, and money seems to be the only thing preventing all out war.
Weird that the US essentially told Pakistan to "let us fire missiles from your nation or we'll bomb you too" but we don't haev the balls to even fck with China's neighbor.
I guess it has nothing to do with the fact Iran has sexy oil and N Korea has zilch, eh? ;)
-
Weird that the US essentially told Pakistan to "let us fire missiles from your nation or we'll bomb you too" but we don't haev the balls to even fck with China's neighbor.
I guess it has nothing to do with the fact Iran has sexy oil and N Korea has zilch, eh? ;)
Mmmm, from some perspectives you could make that argument, but first you would need credible evidence that a war with Iran will truly benefit us in some way tied to oil. Are we going to set up an extended govenment out there, and just take over the country? I highly doubt it. We CAN mess with iran because we don't need to revamp the whole country, we need to destroy their ability to produce nuclear weapons. Iran has a shit military, this won't be all that difficult, PLUS Iran WILL use nukes if they get them AS LONG AS ahmadinejad is president. I say this because although he doesn't hold all the power, in actuallity he does speak for those in power. North Korea is simply in a position where they are pissed off at the UN sanctions, so they are making nuclear bombs and will probably threaten to sell them to terrorists, in which case we will probably buy their nukes just to make sure that doesn't happen. You can be sure that will be profitable for kim jong, hence his developing them. He has no plans to use them, shit if he was going to, china might actually stop him as we are chinas biggest ally economically, and china probably wouldn't want to deal with the US shooting nukes at their neigbor, and possibly striking them.
-
we set up puppet regimes in EVERY nation we topple. It's the people we can't fking control. we manage resources underground, but not the cities above.
It's where all the $ is!
-
So Japan, Germany, and Italy have puppet regimes?
How about all of the new democracies across Europe that happened to spring up because of the end of the Cold War?
Other then them though right?
So even though Iraq voted for a leader the US didn't want. They have a puppet regime to?
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050725fa_fact (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050725fa_fact)
-
So Japan, Germany, and Italy have puppet regimes?
How about all of the new democracies across Europe that happened to spring up because of the end of the Cold War?
Other then them though right?
So even though Iraq voted for a leader the US didn't want. They have a puppet regime to?
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050725fa_fact (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050725fa_fact)
Nah, the axis powers signed treaties. we won't play the treaty game anymore (or we'd be negotiating deals with Iran and Syria.
Iraq chose from a group of people we approved. Is there any doubt al Sadr would have won, if he had been allowed on the ballot? We defined anyone who wouldn't work with us as a bad apple and locked them outta the political process.
If Iraq was trily independent, they'd more than likely choose contractors from various nations to manage their functions. Instead, our generals are choosing.
The title is naught - it's who controls the flow of resources with the power.
-
So Japan, Germany, and Italy have puppet regimes?
How about all of the new democracies across Europe that happened to spring up because of the end of the Cold War?
Other then them though right?
So even though Iraq voted for a leader the US didn't want. They have a puppet regime to?
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050725fa_fact (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050725fa_fact)
It is a puppet regime because the US is there against the will of the Iraqi people.
-
It is a puppet regime because the US is there against the will of the Iraqi people.
So Japan and South Korea are puppet regimes then to, Since Okinawa doesn't want Americans there and neither does South Korea.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/20/AR2006052001051_pf.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/20/AR2006052001051_pf.html)
-
So Japan and South Korea are puppet regimes then to, Since Okinawa doesn't want Americans there and neither does South Korea.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/20/AR2006052001051_pf.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/20/AR2006052001051_pf.html)
Do we meddle in affairs of those nations? Have we recently toppled the regimes in those countries? Have we paved the way for insurgents? Don't compares apples and oranges.
-
It is a puppet regime because the US is there against the will of the Iraqi people.
let the iraqi people speak for themselves
http://www.theotheriraq.com/
-
let the iraqi people speak for themselves
http://www.theotheriraq.com/
That is a Kurdish propaganda page, no?
-
That is a Kurdish propaganda page, no?
Kurdistan is relatively peaceful. So are some other areas of Iraq.
But Baghdad is another story.
-
propaganda
::)
-
hell, we should let them split the place up. I know a lot of the regions would lose any oil revenues though.
With the $200 million we're spending a DAY in there... shit... we should just GIVE them the money to get along. Would save lives and help them to rebuild the infrastructure.
Of course, the military contractors don't make a profit then, so...
-
My point is that the Kurds aren't the ones killing our troops.
Every time someone says "it's not that bad there, look!" they are representing the views of a minority as a majority.
-
Of course, the military contractors don't make a profit then, so...
There's gonna be a show on National Geographic about Iraq's guns for hire.
-
Actually, I look at how people use the word, which is more important than some Wiki link on the internet. Try looking up the words "denotation" and "connation." ::) And I won't even charge you for that.
Yea, Oh brother, who are you accusing of applying a different connotation to the word then ::) 240 and I are quite surgical with our use of the term and we know exactly what we're saying when using it... So who are you talking about then Beach?
Thanks Beach, I actually never heard of the word connation so I did look it up:
Directory > Words > Webster 1913 Con·na·tion
n.
Connection by birth; natural union.
::)
-
Yea, Oh brother, who are you accusing of applying a different connotation to the word then ::) 240 and I are quite surgical with our use of the term and we know exactly what we're saying when using it... So who are you talking about then Beach?
Thanks Beach, I actually never heard of the word connation so I did look it up:
Directory > Words > Webster 1913 Con·na·tion
n.
Connection by birth; natural union.
::)
CONNOTATION. Obviously a typo. Grammar Nazi. ::) Good thing I didn't send you a bill.
"240 and I are quite surgical with our use of the term . . ." Bwahahahaha!!! Now that is the funniest thing I've heard all day.
-
Beach Bum,
How do you define a 'neoconservative'?
-
Beach Bum,
How do you define a 'neoconservative'?
You seem to label anyone that disagrees with you this, just as you called me 'right-wing' ::)
-
Beach Bum,
How do you define a 'neoconservative'?
I don't. Not a part of my vocabulary. I don't think I've ever used the term. But I know how many others use it.
-
You seem to label anyone that disagrees with you this, just as you called me 'right-wing' ::)
Ding! :)
-
I don't. Not a part of my vocabulary. I don't think I've ever used the term. But I know how many others use it.
Why would you engage in a discussion on a word that you cannot define?
-
Why would you engage in a discussion on a word that you cannot define?
"But I know how many others use it." And you and Berserker engaged me. ::)
-
"But I know how many others use it." And you and Berserker engaged me. ::)
So you defended and/or attacked the definition of the word before forming your own opinion on its definition.
Do you frequently engage in debates where you have no idea what your position is?
-
So you defended and/or attacked the definition of the word before forming your own opinion on its definition.
Do you frequently engage in debates where you have no idea what your position is?
I too frequently answer your dumb questions. That's for sure. ::) Quit trying to act like an intellectual. Stick with your multiple conspiracy theories, like the faked moon landing, the 93 WTC, Oklahoma City, 9/11, etc., etc, etc.
-
I too frequently answer your dumb questions. That's for sure. ::) Quit trying to act like an intellectual. Stick with your multiple conspiracy theories, like the faked moon landing, the 93 WTC, Oklahoma City, 9/11, etc., etc, etc.
Oh brother ::), monster paranoia. How does this guy sleep at night with all the unsolved mysteries to expose?!!
-
Oh brother ::), monster paranoia. How does this guy sleep at night with all the unsolved mysteries to expose?!!
I think it does indeed take a paranoid mind to believe in all of those purported conspiracies.
-
I think it does indeed take a paranoid mind to believe in all of those purported conspiracies.
It's an element of self-importance also. Rob honestly believes he's a step ahead of the heavy mouth breathing masses, which are too busy consuming to notice these amazing conspiracies happening right under our noses. Little does he know, he's actually exposing himself for those things he accuses our would-be conspirators guilty of.......
-
No, it takes an open mind to analyze events, take note when those doing the investigation also have the most to gain from the events, and looking at the evidence.
No offense, but anyone who believes the "official story" on Oklahoma city is F*cking retarded. only way to put it. The feds carried out two undetonated bombs, planted inside the building, in front of all the TV cameras. FEMA wrote all about the details.
Then, the next day, those bombs no longer existed. Cleared from record, never mentioned in court.
So yes, there were add'l bombs planted in the building, and yes, they were quietly dropped. So yes, there was a coverup to some extent, and since it involved more than one man, it was, by definition, a conspiracy.
To deny a conspiracy here - where bombs disappeared - shows you are truly an idiot. Sorry, but it's true. Not placing blame on any group - but to deny there was a cover up is to ignore the facts.
-
It's an element of self-importance also. Rob honestly believes he's a step ahead of the heavy mouth breathing masses, which are too busy consuming to notice these amazing conspiracies happening right under our noses. Little does he know, he's actually exposing himself for those things he accuses our would-be conspirators guilty of.......
Believe what you want. We faked the gulf of tonken. Declassified documents prove it. This shit happens. For years, people accused the govt of lying about it, and for years, they were called crazy. Then, they were proven right, and all those people who called them crazy all those years... well, they just shut up.
-
I don't. Not a part of my vocabulary. I don't think I've ever used the term. But I know how many others use it.
Beach makes his own reality... who are we to get in the way of his delusions ::)
-
It's an element of self-importance also. Rob honestly believes he's a step ahead of the heavy mouth breathing masses, which are too busy consuming to notice these amazing conspiracies happening right under our noses. Little does he know, he's actually exposing himself for those things he accuses our would-be conspirators guilty of.......
And one of the most bizarre things is the fact he ridicules people who DON'T believe in this nonsense.
-
Beach makes his own reality... who are we to get in the way of his delusions ::)
Hahaha!! Says the mean who believes multiple governments are planning the end of the world. hee hee hee. You make me laugh man. ;D [Oops. One of my assistants just asked me why I was laughing. ;D] Hey did you build your end-of-the-world bunker yet?
-
And one of the most bizarre things is the fact he ridicules people who DON'T believe in this nonsense.
nah, it's people who will dismiss my posts without looking at the facts.
BB, you call me out for the OKC beliefs.
What explanation do you have for the giant bombs removed in front of the TV cameras which disappeared from the court records? Why do audio recordings have TWO giant blasts, and seismic records do too? Why was McVeigh videotaped on a military base, doing spec ops for a bombing unit, 15 months after the Army said he was discharged?
See, I post and ask for explanations. none come. Instead, just mockery. however, for anyone else reading this, they look at what we post. I post facts which I can back up with evidence. You don't even address them, because any one of them destroys the official story for that event.
History will prove me right on OKC. A republican congress just reprimanded the FBI for ignoring evidence on OKC. A repub congressman is opening a new investigation. He believes it was an inside job.
So are you gonna address facts, or just hurl insults?
-
CONNOTATION. Obviously a typo. Grammar Nazi. ::) Good thing I didn't send you a bill.
"240 and I are quite surgical with our use of the term . . ." Bwahahahaha!!! Now that is the funniest thing I've heard all day.
Please quote where we used the term out of context provided by popular definition as outlined by us... Unless you can do that, you're talking out your arse as usual. Oh and that was one hell of a typo, it wasn't even close: connotation vs. connation ??? Don't call me a grammar nazi, you're the one that got on your high horse and told me to look up terms everyone knows the meaning of. If you're going to send me marching off to the dictionary, you better be spelling it right ;) Other than that, I make mistakes all the time, this is just a message board but you bought this one ;)
-
Hahaha!! Says the mean who believes multiple governments are planning the end of the world. hee hee hee. You make me laugh man. ;D [Oops. One of my assistants just asked me why I was laughing. ;D] Hey did you build your end-of-the-world bunker yet?
The big difference is, I prefaced that thinking by noting it was extreme thinking and that I did not expect people to follow ;) Nice of you to conveniently leave that little fact out :D
-
nah, it's people who will dismiss my posts without looking at the facts.
BB, you call me out for the OKC beliefs.
What explanation do you have for the giant bombs removed in front of the TV cameras which disappeared from the court records? Why do audio recordings have TWO giant blasts, and seismic records do too? Why was McVeigh videotaped on a military base, doing spec ops for a bombing unit, 15 months after the Army said he was discharged?
See, I post and ask for explanations. none come. Instead, just mockery. however, for anyone else reading this, they look at what we post. I post facts which I can back up with evidence. You don't even address them, because any one of them destroys the official story for that event.
History will prove me right on OKC. A republican congress just reprimanded the FBI for ignoring evidence on OKC. A repub congressman is opening a new investigation. He believes it was an inside job.
So are you gonna address facts, or just hurl insults?
I chose "hurl insults." :) *insert Twilight Zone theme*
-
I chose "hurl insults." :) *insert Twilight Zone theme*
::)
;D
-
nah, it's people who will dismiss my posts without looking at the facts.
BB, you call me out for the OKC beliefs.
What explanation do you have for the giant bombs removed in front of the TV cameras which disappeared from the court records? Why do audio recordings have TWO giant blasts, and seismic records do too? Why was McVeigh videotaped on a military base, doing spec ops for a bombing unit, 15 months after the Army said he was discharged?
See, I post and ask for explanations. none come. Instead, just mockery. however, for anyone else reading this, they look at what we post. I post facts which I can back up with evidence. You don't even address them, because any one of them destroys the official story for that event.
History will prove me right on OKC. A republican congress just reprimanded the FBI for ignoring evidence on OKC. A repub congressman is opening a new investigation. He believes it was an inside job.
So are you gonna address facts, or just hurl insults?
Yawn. So the FBI can pull off killing dozens of innocent people without anyone noticing, but freely allows you to expose their devious scheme on an internet website ::)
To call anyone that doesn't buy into your needlessly elaborate conspiracy theories an idiot is unwarranted, offensive and an attempt to stifle debate.
-
Please quote where we used the term out of context provided by popular definition as outlined by us... Unless you can do that, you're talking out your arse as usual. Oh and that was one hell of a typo, it wasn't even close: connotation vs. connation ??? Don't call me a grammar nazi, you're the one that got on your high horse and told me to look up terms everyone knows the meaning of. If you're going to send me marching off to the dictionary, you better be spelling it right ;) Other than that, I make mistakes all the time, this is just a message board but you bought this one ;)
Ding ding ding! Hey we agree on something. :) You of all people should not be correcting anyone's grammar. I made a mistake. Trying to multi-task. It can be very difficult to slap you around and manage a business at the same time. Challenging.
Several on this board, particularly you and 240, have used the term "neocon" to describe basically any Republican or conservative, especially those who disagree with you. That's where the "CONNOTATIVE meaning" comes from.
-
Yawn. So the FBI can pull off killing dozens of innocent people without anyone noticing, but freely allows you to expose their devious scheme on an internet website ::)
To call anyone that doesn't buy into your needlessly elaborate conspiracy theories an idiot is unwarranted, offensive and an attempt to stifle debate.
Who said anything about the FBI? I am not accusing any group of any wrongdoing. It's wrong for me to do that, and I intend not to.
I am pointing out evidence, and emphasizing the need for a second investigation.
You're not looking at the evidence - you're looking at "whether people would be allowed to put up websites about it". And it was 168 killed there.
Facts are facts - Congress said the FBi failed to follow up on certain evidence. The place was leveled with no forensic analysis. I could list a dozen more, but it matters naught. You won't research what i've said so far.
The good news it, people in OK are moving legislation to have it re-opened. *IF* there was any criminal activity on anyone besides those convicted, and it comes out, great. At the very least, it should explain just where those two large pesky bombs went.
-
Several on this board, particularly you and 240, have used the term "neocon" to describe basically any Republican or conservative, especially those who disagree with you.
I've posted MANY times about the split in the repub party between the moderate repubs and the neocons.
You're wrong :)
-
Who said anything about the FBI? I am not accusing any group of any wrongdoing. It's wrong for me to do that, and I intend not to.
I am pointing out evidence, and emphasizing the need for a second investigation.
You're not looking at the evidence - you're looking at "whether people would be allowed to put up websites about it". And it was 168 killed there.
Facts are facts - Congress said the FBi failed to follow up on certain evidence. The place was leveled with no forensic analysis. I could list a dozen more, but it matters naught. You won't research what i've said so far.
The good news it, people in OK are moving legislation to have it re-opened. *IF* there was any criminal activity on anyone besides those convicted, and it comes out, great. At the very least, it should explain just where those two large pesky bombs went.
What a weak response. You claim somone, who now you won't name, consipired to kill the 168 people you mention. Then you claim I ignore evidence, when you yourself completely ignore the (entirely conclusive) evidence presented to you that Timothy McVeigh was actually responsible. Sigh, you are a lost cause, I only hope everyone else notices your many incosistencies and fact-bendings.
-
What a weak response. You claim somone, who now you won't name, consipired to kill the 168 people you mention. Then you claim I ignore evidence, when you yourself completely ignore the (entirely conclusive) evidence presented to you that Timothy McVeigh was actually responsible. Sigh, you are a lost cause, I only hope everyone else notices your many incosistencies and fact-bendings.
He also believes McVeigh was not really executed.
-
What a weak response. You claim somone, who now you won't name, consipired to kill the 168 people you mention. Then you claim I ignore evidence, when you yourself completely ignore the (entirely conclusive) evidence presented to you that Timothy McVeigh was actually responsible. Sigh, you are a lost cause, I only hope everyone else notices your many incosistencies and fact-bendings.
I claim that a great deal of evidence exists that more than just mecveigh/nicholls were involved.
Of course McVeigh was involved and guilty. But there were two large bombs in the building which were removed by authorities. McVeigh, by their timeline and building security, certainly did not carry them in the front door of a federal building that day.
I can show you the FEMA documents detailing the two large bombs if you want. If you can explain how McVeigh put them in the building, then how they were scrubbed from the record, go for it!
*BTW - it would be irresponsible to place blame. I simply just showed the errors in the official story and reiterated the ened for a second investigation. And it looks like in OKC, they're going to get one shortly.
-
He also believes McVeigh was not really executed.
No. I simply stated that two of the ten witnesses said in interviews that oddly, McVeigh was still breathing when they closed the curtain, AFTER he had been declared dead.
You can take this info as you wish.
-
I claim that a great deal of evidence exists that more than just mecveigh/nicholls were involved.
Of course McVeigh was involved and guilty. But there were two large bombs in the building which were removed by authorities. McVeigh, by their timeline and building security, certainly did not carry them in the front door of a federal building that day.
I can show you the FEMA documents detailing the two large bombs if you want. If you can explain how McVeigh put them in the building, then how they were scrubbed from the record, go for it!
*BTW - it would be irresponsible to place blame. I simply just showed the errors in the official story and reiterated the ened for a second investigation. And it looks like in OKC, they're going to get one shortly.
That's a much better, and more moderate, post - even if I don't necessarily agree with all you say.
-
That's a much better, and more moderate, post - even if I don't necessarily agree with all you say.
I invite you to research the topic further.
here is one interpretation of the day's events. While many would label the website as "conspiracy crap", they source each fact with rela mainstream media sources. You can even read the FEMA documents from the US Govts own website. It's unexplainable:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/ok.html
Many people who think the idea of 9/11 is silly, will look at events of Oklahoma City and will accuse the FBI, ATF, or Clinton of wrongdoing. indeed, each has some questions to answer about that day (FBI ignored a great deal of evidence accorsing to Congress, every ATF agent kept his/her children home from work and were out of the building at 9:01 when the blast happened, while their secretaries and families were killed.)
I don't know what happened, but the evidence certainly says the official story is wrong.
-
Ding ding ding! Hey we agree on something. :) You of all people should not be correcting anyone's grammar. I made a mistake. Trying to multi-task. It can be very difficult to slap you around and manage a business at the same time. Challenging.
Several on this board, particularly you and 240, have used the term "neocon" to describe basically any Republican or conservative, especially those who disagree with you. That's where the "CONNOTATIVE meaning" comes from.
You made a mistake trying to send me to the dictionary, don't try an twist it, you bought it, own it twerp. And unless you get some examples where we are using it to describe all republicans you're full of shit end of story... Much of my family are republicans and none of them are neocons... I wouldn't make that mistake... ::) You are a pathetic liar.
-
You made a mistake trying to send me to the dictionary, don't try an twist it, you bought it, own it twerp. And unless you get some examples where we are using it to describe all republicans you're full of shit end of story... Much of my family are republicans and none of them are neocons... I wouldn't make that mistake... ::) You are a pathetic liar.
Wow, just spitting bile, aren't you? Not much 'moderate' in this Moderator, unfortunately.
-
Wow, just spitting bile, aren't you? Not much 'moderate' in this Moderator, unfortunately.
berserker is an angry man, sure. But beach Bum has continually characterized our definition of "neocon" as "republican", despite the fact we're both republicans who dislike the neocon sliver of the party.
The moderate republicans are starting to become visible again. They're the ones who don't want to give Bush 5 more years in iraq. They're the ones who want to slow down the spending and take a closer look at domestic spying. They are strong on defense and want to fix the border, and see no sense in a "maintenance" level of 21,500 forces when the number should either be 150k, or zero.
The moderate republicans are returning. beach bum's religious beliefs won't let him accept he's been trumpeting the neocon message for the last year, so he's trying to merge the groups.
-
You made a mistake trying to send me to the dictionary, don't try an twist it, you bought it, own it twerp. And unless you get some examples where we are using it to describe all republicans you're full of shit end of story... Much of my family are republicans and none of them are neocons... I wouldn't make that mistake... ::) You are a pathetic liar.
Oh darn. And I care so much about your opinion. What I will do now?
Hey they're coming to get your guns! lol.
-
berserker is an angry man, sure. But beach Bum has continually characterized our definition of "neocon" as "republican", despite the fact we're both republicans who dislike the neocon sliver of the party.
Oh so you're a Republican this week? Riiiiight. You were a Republican, then not, then a libertarian, then not. Make up your mind man.
And Berserker is a Republican? Bwahaha! Stop it. You guys are killing me today. ;D lol . . .
-
Oh so you're a Republican this week? Riiiiight. You were a Republican, then not, then a libertarian, then not. Make up your mind man.
And Berserker is a Republican? Bwahaha! Stop it. You guys are killing me today. ;D lol . . .
You don't understand the core beliefs of the Republican party.
Bush got elected on them. Look them up.
No nation building, strong national security starting at home on the border, energy problem solving thru ingenuity, not starting wars.
You really don't understand the difference, do you?
-
berserker is an angry man, sure. But beach Bum has continually characterized our definition of "neocon" as "republican", despite the fact we're both republicans who dislike the neocon sliver of the party.
The moderate republicans are starting to become visible again. They're the ones who don't want to give Bush 5 more years in iraq. They're the ones who want to slow down the spending and take a closer look at domestic spying. They are strong on defense and want to fix the border, and see no sense in a "maintenance" level of 21,500 forces when the number should either be 150k, or zero.
The moderate republicans are returning. beach bum's religious beliefs won't let him accept he's been trumpeting the neocon message for the last year, so he's trying to merge the groups.
Okay, but you'll have to do much more to convince me you're a moderate Republican. I do appreciate your ability to raise these issues without putting anyone down or abusing, though - Beserker should take note.
-
Okay, but you'll have to do much more to convince me you're a moderate Republican. I do appreciate your ability to raise these issues without putting anyone down or abusing, though - Beserker should take note.
I have voted republican in every election in my life. I actually converted several dems to vote for Bush. I am very strong for justice, minimal govt interference in our lives, minimal welfare for the lazy, strong defense, etc etc.
Lately though - after learning about the incredible coverup of 9/11 events* and the resulting elective wars on weak intel, I have seen the Bush admin going in a direction which actually encourages MORE govt waste, MORE govt involvement and control in our lives, LESS justice, etc.
Bush does not represent many republicans. Beach bum continues to tell us that you have to be behind bush on every call to be a republican. That is not the case.
*911 => NORAD lied about 45 minutes - complete standdown. An FAA supervisor smashed and discarded the flight contorller recordings of that morning. These two groups were not questinoed despite their actions being responsbile for the planes reaching their targets. Bush also lied to us about what he knew when on 9/11 - AA records show his secret service detail knew at 8:17 am about hijackings. Bush told the media at 9:00 that he thuoght it was a bad pilot. By then, his personal team had been told about 3 of the hijackings. he knew 3 planes had been hijacked when he walked into that classroom. (these are facts readily available by the 911 commission)
-
I have voted republican in every election in my life. I actually converted several dems to vote for Bush. I am very strong for justice, minimal govt interference in our lives, minimal welfare for the lazy, strong defense, etc etc.
Lately though - after learning about the incredible coverup of 9/11 events* and the resulting elective wars on weak intel, I have seen the Bush admin going in a direction which actually encourages MORE govt waste, MORE govt involvement and control in our lives, LESS justice, etc.
Bush does not represent many republicans. Beach bum continues to tell us that you have to be behind bush on every call to be a republican. That is not the case.
*911 => NORAD lied about 45 minutes - complete standdown. An FAA supervisor smashed and discarded the flight contorller recordings of that morning. These two groups were not questinoed despite their actions being responsbile for the planes reaching their targets. Bush also lied to us about what he knew when on 9/11 - AA records show his secret service detail knew at 8:17 am about hijackings. Bush told the media at 9:00 that he thuoght it was a bad pilot. By then, his personal team had been told about 3 of the hijackings. he knew 3 planes had been hijacked when he walked into that classroom. (these are facts readily available by the 911 commission)
I followed everything you said right up the the 9/11 part. I totally agree that Bush may be the leader of the Republicans, but not necessarily represent them all 100%. Despite this I believe he is a good leader and has made good of some very tough decisions.
-
I followed everything you said right up the the 9/11 part. I totally agree that Bush may be the leader of the Republicans, but not necessarily represent them all 100%. Despite this I believe he is a good leader and has made good of some very tough decisions.
I loved Bush. I had stickers everywhere. I used to try to pick fights with Gore supporters in college. I mean, I was hardcore!!!!!
BRUCE, if you look into the events on 9/11, you will agree something smells very very bad. Four of the ten members of the 911 Commission itself have already come out and said we need a new investigation. It's very scary and very hard to look at, but if it interests you, look at it and see if the "Conspiracy theorists" are really as crazy as they're labeled. Fact of the matter is, most people who watch an hour documentary on it will walk away with at least one "smoking gun" of the 9/11 story that absolutely does not make sense.
I don't say "The govt" did it, because more in power would balk at the idea of helping the evil terrorists. But after watching clips on it, there is no doubt in my mind that those 19 arabs had serious help from white guys in ties ON 9/11, as well as in the denial then crippling of an investigation.
But heck, the first time I heard it, I almost got into a fistfight with the prick with the audacity to say it. I'm an MBA with a degree in history. And it took me a year to really believe it. So for others, the mind just can't handle it now, and never would even with signed confessions in front of them.
And I don't claim to know who did what. I know Bush was in charge, and the man in charge is the one who should do a complete invetigation into huge holes in the story.
911 Power Hour - Very well reasoned case with undeniable facts (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1324784989021694087&q=911+power+hour&hl=en)
911 Mysteries - Focused upon why the towers fell, best case for controlled demolition (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=911+mysteries&hl=en)
-
I loved Bush. I had stickers everywhere. I used to try to pick fights with Gore supporters in college. I mean, I was hardcore!!!!!
BRUCE, if you look into the events on 9/11, you will agree something smells very very bad. Four of the ten members of the 911 Commission itself have already come out and said we need a new investigation. It's very scary and very hard to look at, but if it interests you, look at it and see if the "Conspiracy theorists" are really as crazy as they're labeled. Fact of the matter is, most people who watch an hour documentary on it will walk away with at least one "smoking gun" of the 9/11 story that absolutely does not make sense.
I don't say "The govt" did it, because more in power would balk at the idea of helping the evil terrorists. But after watching clips on it, there is no doubt in my mind that those 19 arabs had serious help from white guys in ties ON 9/11, as well as in the denial then crippling of an investigation.
But heck, the first time I heard it, I almost got into a fistfight with the prick with the audacity to say it. I'm an MBA with a degree in history. And it took me a year to really believe it. So for others, the mind just can't handle it now, and never would even with signed confessions in front of them.
And I don't claim to know who did what. I know Bush was in charge, and the man in charge is the one who should do a complete invetigation into huge holes in the story.
911 Power Hour - Very well reasoned case with undeniable facts (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1324784989021694087&q=911+power+hour&hl=en)
911 Mysteries - Focused upon why the towers fell, best case for controlled demolition (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=911+mysteries&hl=en)
I think too much happened in those hours for us to get exact clarity in everything that happened. I love a good conspiracy theory, no matter how far fetched. Not because I believe, but because I am constantly amazed at the vividness of some peoples' imaginations, especially when it fits their agenda. Here's a great article illustrating that, and the deep seated anger and abuse that resides within people, particularly of the left, when someone dares to disagree:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11818067/the_low_post_the_hopeless_stupidity_of_911_conspiracies (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11818067/the_low_post_the_hopeless_stupidity_of_911_conspiracies)
-
I think too much happened in those hours for us to get exact clarity in everything that happened. I love a good conspiracy theory, no matter how far fetched. Not because I believe, but because I am constantly amazed at the vividness of some peoples' imaginations, especially when it fits their agenda. Here's a great article illustrating that, and the deep seated anger and abuse that resides within people, particularly of the left, when someone dares to disagree:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11818067/the_low_post_the_hopeless_stupidity_of_911_conspiracies (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11818067/the_low_post_the_hopeless_stupidity_of_911_conspiracies)
I've read that. The author makes it a partisan issue, which 911 DEFINITELY is NOT.
BRUCE, throughout history, govts have used false attacks to gain public support for foreign policy which they know would be unpopular. 9/11 meant 4 wars in the middle east, which means the US will prevent China from being a superpower for the next 50 years. In a utilitarian sense, economically, 911 actually HELPED america, in the long term. I'm not naive about that. But I think you are being naive if your only retort is "they wouldn't do that, and people who say they would don't like Bush".
-
The moderate republicans are starting to become visible again.
:)
-
I've read that. The author makes it a partisan issue, which 911 DEFINITELY is NOT.
BRUCE, throughout history, govts have used false attacks to gain public support for foreign policy which they know would be unpopular. 9/11 meant 4 wars in the middle east, which means the US will prevent China from being a superpower for the next 50 years. In a utilitarian sense, economically, 911 actually HELPED america, in the long term. I'm not naive about that. But I think you are being naive if your only retort is "they wouldn't do that, and people who say they would don't like Bush".
Herein lies my issue with these theories. If we wanted to make a case for invading Iraq, then we did a real bad job of it by staging 9/11. It's needlessly complicated, and the end result does't give us a very good reason for attacking Iraq anyway. There are far easier ways to kill people, stage it, and mount a case for war - 9/11 isn't one of them.
-
Herein lies my issue with these theories. If we wanted to make a case for invading Iraq, then we did a real bad job of it by staging 9/11. It's needlessly complicated, and the end result does't give us a very good reason for attacking Iraq anyway. There are far easier ways to kill people, stage it, and mount a case for war - 9/11 isn't one of them.
911 would have been the pretext for afghanistan. Recall that US/Taleban oil pipeline negotiations ended in July when they, despite our threats of "choose a carpet of bombs or die under a carpet of bombs" - google it - and they signed with an Argentenian oil firm. We then told UK and India we'd be invading in mid-oct. This was june 01.
Bruce, it's kinda pointless for us to argue on different points; I have watched the video clips, and despite my initial disbelief, at the end, I was convinced there was some serious enough evidence to show compliance here with the 19 arabs.
If you can, choose one of the documentaries and check it out. I am an educated man who supported Bush 100%, and while it took some soul-searching and confusion, at the end of watching some and doing add'l research, I reached my conclusions.
Since you haven't watched one, it's kinda silly for us to debate whether there's any legitimacy to it. (It'd be like you and I arguing over which Aussie beach is nicest, when I have no background information).
Check one out, see what you think. But we cannot debate with different background info here.
http://www.jonhs.net/911/index.php
-
911 would have been the pretext for afghanistan. Recall that US/Taleban oil pipeline negotiations ended in July when they, despite our threats of "choose a carpet of bombs or die under a carpet of bombs" - google it - and they signed with an Argentenian oil firm. We then told UK and India we'd be invading in mid-oct. This was june 01.
Bruce, it's kinda pointless for us to argue on different points; I have watched the video clips, and despite my initial disbelief, at the end, I was convinced there was some serious enough evidence to show compliance here with the 19 arabs.
If you can, choose one of the documentaries and check it out. I am an educated man who supported Bush 100%, and while it took some soul-searching and confusion, at the end of watching some and doing add'l research, I reached my conclusions.
Since you haven't watched one, it's kinda silly for us to debate whether there's any legitimacy to it. (It'd be like you and I arguing over which Aussie beach is nicest, when I have no background information).
Check one out, see what you think. But we cannot debate with different background info here.
http://www.jonhs.net/911/index.php
You assume I'm not familiar 9/11 conspiracy theories, which is wrong, and makes your beach analogy defunct. But just for the record, Bondi is the nicest, and I'll kill anyone on this website that says different >:(
I too would also like to declare that I am a 'bush' man.
-
You assume I'm not familiar 9/11 conspiracy theories, which is wrong, and makes your beach analogy defunct. But just for the record, Bondi is the nicest, and I'll kill anyone on this website that says different >:(
I too would also like to declare that I am a 'bush' man.
Can you tell me what you estimate to be the biggest 5 smoking guns of the 911 truthers, and why each one is wrong?
-
Can you tell me what you estimate to be the biggest 5 smoking guns of the 911 truthers, and why each one is wrong?
That's some assignment you've set me, and I'm not sure if I know exactly what you mean by 'truthers'. I'll compromise with you, here is what I think are the 5 most mysterious events surrounding 9/11, keeping in mind I don't believe anything was covered up:
- Still no footage of a plane hitting the Pentagon
- Why did the tower hit first, fall last?
- The lack of debris around United Flight 93
- The recovered terrorist's passport from NYC streets, yet lack of black boxes
- Three buildings all toppled by fire; the first three ever, on the same day
But that's just 9/11 for you, it was a weird day. I hope this satisfies your request.
-
Wow, just spitting bile, aren't you? Not much 'moderate' in this Moderator, unfortunately.
That's actually pretty mild from him. Must be taking his meds today. ;D
-
The moderate republicans are returning. beach bum's religious beliefs won't let him accept he's been trumpeting the neocon message for the last year, so he's trying to merge the groups.
O Rly? And what exactly are my religious beliefs?
-
O Rly? And what exactly are my religious beliefs?
If you have any, they disagree with the Bush Doctrine. HTH.
-
That's some assignment you've set me, and I'm not sure if I know exactly what you mean by 'truthers'. I'll compromise with you, here is what I think are the 5 most mysterious events surrounding 9/11, keeping in mind I don't believe anything was covered up:
- Still no footage of a plane hitting the Pentagon
- Why did the tower hit first, fall last?
- The lack of debris around United Flight 93
- The recovered terrorist's passport from NYC streets, yet lack of black boxes
- Three buildings all toppled by fire; the first three ever, on the same day
But that's just 9/11 for you, it was a weird day. I hope this satisfies your request.
Nice.
have you checked out the investigation? Bush told Congress it would NEVER happen, then after the widows marched on the white house for 441 days, he started one with $3M and a short timeline.
Also have you seen the Paki general (head of their CIA) who paid Atta $100k, a few days before 9/11, then had breakfast with a 9/11 commission member and the future head of the CIA, ON 9/11?
Anyway...
IMO, it is absolutely statistically impossible for that many events to violate national defense protocols and the laws of physics in one day, and for it to coincidentally benefit those in power so much, with so much pre- attack signs of foreknowledge, and for them to insist on no real investigation to see how such a *weird* as you put it, to happen on one day.
As for a coverup, the White house deleted that Paki generals' name from the stenogrpaher and recordings and declared "inaudiable" even though it played on CNN/CNBC just fine. So that is simple evidence of a coverup, if you want it.
-
That's some assignment you've set me, and I'm not sure if I know exactly what you mean by 'truthers'. I'll compromise with you, here is what I think are the 5 most mysterious events surrounding 9/11, keeping in mind I don't believe anything was covered up:
- Still no footage of a plane hitting the Pentagon
- Why did the tower hit first, fall last?
- The lack of debris around United Flight 93
- The recovered terrorist's passport from NYC streets, yet lack of black boxes
- Three buildings all toppled by fire; the first three ever, on the same day
But that's just 9/11 for you, it was a weird day. I hope this satisfies your request.
From the CT standpoint, the most mysterious events would be what happened to Flights 77 and 93 and all of the passengers. Here is where this theory falls apart. The explanations are just nutty. What happens is these people argue around this obvious gaping hole in their theory.
-
And the pentagon - $2.3 Trillion goes missing on the afternoon of 9/10, then the next morning a plane crashes into the accounting dept...
and WTC 7, not hit with any plane, has internal fires yet the entire outside is converted to dust in under 7 seconds.
and the tower explosions we see on camera, the laws of physics they broke when falling, the fact Rudy was told 10 min before that they were falling...
Well, if you can accept the bizarre, statistically impossible, convenient, uninvestigated facts in this manner, that's great. But I want a second investigation. I don't accept "weird" when 3000 people die and we enter 3 wars as a result.
-
If you have any, they disagree with the Bush Doctrine. HTH.
More gibberish. Precisely what I expected. ::)
-
From the CT standpoint, the most mysterious events would be what happened to Flights 77 and 93 and all of the passengers. Here is where this theory falls apart. The explanations are just nutty. What happens is these people argue around this obvious gaping hole in their theory.
We might know where those planes went, but the FAA supervisor destroyed those records.
Sorry, I didn't have my radar on that morning. but they did. And the fact that those tapes were destroyed and that man wasn't put on trial for anything, that smells really bad.
Also, the burden of proof in any situation falls upon the claimant. if my house burns down, and I tell the insurance company it was magic fairies, I'd better damn well have some proof. It isn't their repsonsibility to prove it wasn't fairies.
Likewise, *IF* a group of people here had the ability to override national security protocols, reroute planes, steal 2.3trillion, etc, then it's reasonable to say that group could make a plane or two disappear.
The first chopper on the scene at Pennsylvania showed no plane, no bodies, just a shallow hole dug into the ground. To believe an enture plane nosedived then vaporized would require snorting fairy dust.
-
Wow, just spitting bile, aren't you? Not much 'moderate' in this Moderator, unfortunately.
Get a clue how things work around here before you go pointing fingers... I represent the radical left to center ;D, Ozmo is moderate and Delusional is the rightwing mod. Ron specifically noted he thought it would be cool like crossfire. Crossfire was anything but friendly... If you have a problem take it up with him. Just because I'm mod doesn't mean I can't agrue ::) As far as I'm concerned this place is running beautifully. It's perfect, if you're not happy taking a problem to me, take it to the moderate mod or the righty... 8)
-
More gibberish. Precisely what I expected. ::)
I welcome you to tell me any religion which would embrace things like pre-emptive strikes and refusal to negotiate a peace.
-
I represent the radical left to center
240 disagrees: berserker is an angry man, sure. But beach Bum has continually characterized our definition of "neocon" as "republican", despite the fact we're both republicans who dislike the neocon sliver of the party.
-
240 disagrees: berserker is an angry man, sure. But beach Bum has continually characterized our definition of "neocon" as "republican", despite the fact we're both republicans who dislike the neocon sliver of the party.
my bad.
Again, BB...
I welcome you to tell me any religion which would embrace things like pre-emptive strikes and refusal to negotiate a peace.
-
I welcome you to tell me any religion which would embrace things like pre-emptive strikes and refusal to negotiate a peace.
"beach bum's religious beliefs won't let him accept he's been trumpeting the neocon message for the last year, so he's trying to merge the groups."
What are my religious beliefs 240?
-
"beach bum's religious beliefs won't let him accept he's been trumpeting the neocon message for the last year, so he's trying to merge the groups."
What are my religious beliefs 240?
By definition, all do not match the Bush Doctrine. You inquired "what are mine?" which admits you possess one. The associative property (A=B and B=C so A=C) says yours does not support the concepts of pre-emptive strikes and refusal to negotiate a peace.
-
my bad.
This helps explain why you have zero credibility. You constantly make stuff up.
-
By definition, all do not match the Bush Doctrine. You inquired "what are mine?" which admits you possess one. The associative property (A=B and B=C so A=C) says yours does not support the concepts of pre-emptive strikes and refusal to negotiate a peace.
In other words, you don't have a clue what my religious beliefs are, despite the fact you categorically stated my "religious beliefs" control my support of Bush. "This helps explain why you have zero credibility. You constantly make stuff up."
-
In other words, you don't have a clue what my religious beliefs are, despite the fact you categorically stated my "religious beliefs" control my support of Bush. "This helps explain why you have zero credibility. You constantly make stuff up."
Yawn, i'm going to watch sportscenter. You're quoting yourself now, in your own sentences, and we've been arguing for 30 min about a hypothetical of a hypotetical. We shouldn't talk anymore, BB. I'm breaking up with you.
-
Yawn, i'm going to watch sportscenter. You're quoting yourself now, in your own sentences, and we've been arguing for 30 min about a hypothetical of a hypotetical. We shouldn't talk anymore, BB. I'm breaking up with you.
Buenos noches Scott. Stay away from the guns.
-
Get a clue how things work around here before you go pointing fingers... I represent the radical left to center ;D, Ozmo is moderate and Delusional is the rightwing mod. Ron specifically noted he thought it would be cool like crossfire. Crossfire was anything but friendly... If you have a problem take it up with him. Just because I'm mod doesn't mean I can't agrue ::) As far as I'm concerned this place is running beautifully. It's perfect, if you're not happy taking a problem to me, take it to the moderate mod or the righty... 8)
Good post ::) You make your arguments invalid in the minds of others on this board with your abuse, mod status or not. You should take a note from Rob in how to argue your points without usings insults. You might also note I've been registered on this board as long as you have, and I've been a close follower of this website for years longer, so my clue is well and truly gotten. I even remember the good old days on the X-Board, when Jeff Miller melted down on a global scale, before 240 had even gone nuclear. Ahh, the memories........