Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Sporeworks
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 |  [ show all ]
Re: Saddam and Rumsfeld [Re: Swami]
    #2181725 -

I am responding to your comments. Is there a rule against that?

I'll have to read the rules again because I missed it.

So let me get this straight. The Constitution says this government is of, by, and for the people. It also says this government is a Constitutional Republic. But you say it isn't a government of, by, and for the people. You say it is for big corporations.

Ok, if you say so.

See?

Wasn't that easy?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Saddam and Rumsfeld [Re: Swami]
    #2181730 -

Swami said:
It is about time that we ALL face up to the fact, as Americans, who really is to blame.
Uh huh. The Iraqi people were not to blame because Saddam had guns and money and media control to back up his decisions unlike Bush who has guns and money and media control to back up his decisions.

But if you don't vote, don't bitch, I always say.
And if you do vote and petition and write your Congressman and your rights are still trampled on...?


I don't know but you have me throughly confused by now.

Could you write up a list of all the hypocrites and the reasons why they are hypocrites so I can study it.  All these posts and threads are making me dizzy.

:nut:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Saddam and Rumsfeld [Re: ]
    #2181738 -

I am responding to your comments. Is there a rule against that?

1. This is REALLY in your craw isn't it?

What's the matter, Swamster? A Bush victory got you down?

Don't worry, another one will come in November 2004.


2. You might need a stress pill.

Yes, those (and others) quaint witticisms really addressed your thoughts on Rumsfeld's previous support of Hussein. Don't know how I could have missed that!


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Saddam and Rumsfeld [Re: Swami]
    #2181758 -

:lol:

You don't look so good right now, Swamster.

Need another :pill:?

:lol:

Maybe before we talk again you could advise me on the proper way to post.

Then again, I've seen you in action in the S&P forum.  Where do you think I got my "style"?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Saddam and Rumsfeld [Re: ]
    #2181761 -

Maybe before we talk again you could advise me on the proper way to post.

A comment on your imaginary take on my alleged emotional state is well within the forum rules and your rights, but is still non-responsive to the issue no matter how you spin it. Do what you will my brother - that is true freedom.  :wink:


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Saddam and Rumsfeld [Re: ]
    #2181766 -

Mr_Mushrooms said:
Yes, and given the fact that most voters are stupid and lazy will not be solved by any technology, no matter how ingenious.

Democracy is flawed for that reason plus many others.

Thank God for the Constitution.


It's either the stupid public or stupid, partisan politicians. At least the public isn't being bought out by special interests(unless you count advertising). I would actually support direct democracy within Constitutional limits(i.e. people couldn't vote on something which violated the first amendment). The main problem I have with the internet as a means for direct democracy is that it leaves no paper trail.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Saddam and Rumsfeld [Re: silversoul7]
    #2181776 -

I think the public is bought and sold every election.

They buy the lies and half truths of the media and the politicians themselves.

But, and here is the good part, they don't have to.

Voters have many options available to them. Most people don't vote and those that do don't do it well.

I am a registered poll worker in my state. I have voted thousands of people and I know who they vote for and why. I have voted mentally challenged people (retards), elderly and infirm persons, and a host of others. Every election I get sick to my stomach watching people vote.

It is one of the more pathetic sights I have ever witnessed.

This is a fatal flaw in our government. But I will not excuse these people or give them a free pass when most of them don't know what the hell they are doing.

I have no magic pill to fix this either. But I sure as hell wish I did!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Saddam and Rumsfeld [Re: Swami]
    #2181782 -

I keep seeing this same picture over and over. Did this only happen once or were they like, roommates for a while or something.


--------------------
https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-for-renee-goods-wife-and-son

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Saddam and Rumsfeld [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2181787 -

They grew up together and I think they married each other's sister.

The press has been trying to keep it all hush hush in order to save the president embarrassment.

Take this to heart:

Everything you see that is political from now until next November will more than likely be spun one way or another in an attempt to strip Bush of the presidency or give it to him.

Fact.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Saddam and Rumsfeld [Re: ]
    #2181825 -

Quote:
But the fatal flaw in that line of reasoning is that it is the voters who decide in ALL cases who even runs for office in the first place. I am afraid there is no wiggle room on this one.




Wow! So there is more than one puppet popularity show? Hardly a fatal flaw in my reasoning.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Saddam and Rumsfeld [Re: ]
    #2181828 -

Quote:
and given the fact that most voters are stupid and lazy



So you say. I am far from convinced. Most people just arent interested in politics but as Noam Chomsky has pointed out they will be very knowledgable on the subjects that interest them. Voting a couple of times every four years only to watch the politicians go back on their word time and time again is hardly enthralling stuff.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Saddam and Rumsfeld [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2181831 -

Quote:
I'm still amazed anyone thinks that is a good idea.

If people want to vote to reinstitute slavery?
If people want to vote to keep drugs illegal?
If people vote to (add the idea you'd like least here)




So let an elected government rule and all will be cool?
What if an elected government want to (add the idea you'd like least here)

It seems to me you have decided direct democracy is bad, more likely you have been told, and you are not willing to explore the idea with an open mind. Oh well.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Saddam and Rumsfeld [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2182381 -

Will try once more make it v-e-r-y simple and to get an actual discussion going:

Did Rumsfeld previously support Hussein?

Did Rumsfeld at that time know of Hussein's atrocities to his people?

Did Rumsfeld speak out against these atrocities?

*flash forward to 2000-2003*

Does Rumsfeld still support Hussein?

Is Hussein suddenly more evil?

Did Rumsfeld speak out against these atrocities?

OK, now the important question:

Rumsfeld reversed his position because:

A. He only recently became aware of Hussein's torture of his people.

B. He recently "got religion" and decided to take a moral stance.

C. He took both stances for the self-interests' of the administration which had NOTHING TO DO with caring for the Iraqi people as stated.

Choose carefully.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Saddam and Rumsfeld [Re: Swami]
    #2182405 -

Are sure those choices are all inclusive?

How about: Z, he is doing his job?

You seem to hate the US so much I have to ask. Is there anything about this country you actually like?

They don't detain us here you know.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Saddam and Rumsfeld [Re: ]
    #2182417 -

How about: Z, he is doing his job?
I know there is joy in obtuseness, but please elaborate.

You seem to hate the US so much I have to ask. Is there anything about this country you actually like?
What does my pointing out the hypocrisy of one man have to do with hating my country? Is this really a logical step?


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Saddam and Rumsfeld [Re: Swami]
    #2182452 -

He works for us, not them.


--------------------
https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-for-renee-goods-wife-and-son

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Saddam and Rumsfeld [Re: GazzBut]
    #2182516 -

Quote:
they will be very knowledgable on the subjects that interest them.


Tits, beer and TV....


--------------------
The punishment which the wise suffer, who refuse to take part in government, is to live under the government of worse men.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Saddam and Rumsfeld [Re: GazzBut]
    #2183202 -

It seems to me you think I just woke up one morning and decided direct democracy is bad. That is rather foolish of you. At 46 I'm probably old enough to be your father. I've been into politics since my mid teens. There are no ideas or aspects of politics I haven't explored with an open mind.

That suggests one of two things.
1. You think you can get a rise out of me from a completely assinine statement.
2. You're not as smart as you like to think you are.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Saddam and Rumsfeld [Re: Swami]
    #2183577 -

Swami, you might find this page an interesting read:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/globalissue/usforeignpolicy/USknowledgeIraqchemwarfare1988.html

It has a lot of info backed up by various news articles, including this gem:

Press conference with Ari Fleischer - questions by White House reporter Russell Mokhiber, editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate Crime Reporter.

Mokhiber: The San Francisco Chronicle reported yesterday that a number of major American corporations -- including Hewlett-Packard and Bechtel -- helped Saddam Hussein beef up its military in the 1980s.
And also the Washington Post last month in a front-page article by Michael Dobbs said the United States during the '80s supplied Iraq with cluster bombs, intelligence and chemical and biological agents.
In that same article, they reported that Donald Rumsfeld, now Secretary of Defense, went to Baghdad in December 1983 and met with Saddam Hussein, and this was at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons almost on a daily basis in defiance of international conventions.
So there are some specifics, and the question is -- if Iraq is part of the axis of evil, why aren't the United States and these American corporations part of the axis of evil for helping him out during his time of need?

Ari Fleischer: Russell, as I indicated, I think that you have to make a distinction between chemical and biological. And, clearly, in a previous era, following the fall of the Shah of Iran, when there was a focus on the risks that were underway in the region as a result of the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Iran, different administrations, beginning with President Carter, reached different conclusions about the level of military cooperation vis-a-vis Iraq.
Obviously, Saddam Hussein since that time has used whatever material he had for the purpose therefore of attacking Kuwait, attacking Sauda Arabia, attacking Israel.
And, obviously, as circumstances warrant, we have an approach that requires now the world to focus on the threat that Saddam Hussein presents and that he presents this threat because of his desire to continue to acquire weapons and his willingness to use those weapons against others.

Mokhiber: If I could follow up on that --

Ari Fleischer: Russell. Russell.

Mokhiber: If I could follow-up on it. You and the President have repeatedly said one of the reasons Saddam is part of the axis of evil is because he's gassed his own people. Well, he gassed his own people with our help. You saw the Washington Post article, didn't you, by Michael Dobbs?

Ari Fleischer: I think that statement is not borne out by the facts.

Mokhiber: Did you see the Post article by Dobbs?

Ari Fleischer: I think that he gassed his own people as a result of his decisions to use his weapons to gas his own people.

Mokhiber: But who gave him the weapons?

Ari Fleischer: And I think the suggestion that you blame America for Iraq's actions is way beyond the pale.

Mokhiber: Who gave him the weapons?

(Ari moves on.)


--------------------
The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame".
:tongue:

In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience.

And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him.

"Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Saddam and Rumsfeld [Re: Edame]
    #2183665 -

Thanks for posting that Edame. You get a lot of the same type of dodging on this forum.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 |  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* "Bush is an idiot, but he was right about Saddam" EchoVortex 1,682 14 03/22/03 11:03 PM
by Xlea321
* Democracy takes root beneath the turmoil in Iraq luvdemshrooms 724 8 09/03/03 03:38 AM
by luvdemshrooms
* Interesting take on war reasons Xlea321 611 2 09/02/17 04:34 PM
by sprinkles
* Rumsfeld sees no link between Iraq/9-11
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )		 LearyfanS 6,457 100 09/20/03 01:33 PM
by Phred
* Saddam Hussein
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 Anonymous 3,967 60 07/23/03 12:55 PM
by Anonymous
* US troops to 'protect oil interests' in Africa? Edame 857 1 07/11/03 12:55 PM
by Xlea321
* the Project for a New American Century
( 1 2 all )		 iglou 3,588 26 05/02/03 08:53 AM
by Madtowntripper
* American imperialism - for RailGun headphone 1,583 4 09/06/01 01:08 AM
by MrKurtz

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
2,543 topic views. 3 members, 46 guests and 35 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.032 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 16 queries.