| 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 » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
NextShop:  All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck  North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies  Spores for European Microscopy  Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order  Bulk Cannabis Seeds |
| |||||||
 TheOneYouKnow addict Registered: 01/04/04 Posts: 470 Last seen: 22 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
We can't fight the war on terror by being scared to strike back. These people can't do anything to us that we can't do to their homelands to an exponential power. I can give you the numbers for how many terrorist are no longer in the picture, can you give me the number you ask for ?
Not sure, America has had an attack, Bali has, numerous other places have. They also hated us when Clinton was in charge.
I wasn't asked for them, I was asked for objective positive effects, I provided them.
First time for everything, the economy seems to be rebounding, albeit slowly.
Detail exactly how Bush, independant of any effects of 9/11, caused these problems. In other words, remove every expendature for homeland security and other 9/11 created jobs and positions, remove every amount of money lost due to the economy after 9/11, and show how we'd still be as fucked as you think we are WITHOUT 9/11, solely due to bush. Clearly, you won't be able to.
| |||||||
|
EchoVortex (hard) member Registered: 02/06/02 Posts: 859 Last seen: 18 years, 20 days |
| ||||||
|
I don't think that anyone in here claims to love Bush or approve of all of his policy, however your misguided lines won't help convert those of us that do like him.
I have no interest in converting you, any more than I have in teaching a rock to dance. Name a president that could have been in office that would have kept the economy perfect after 9/11 and other recent world events. No president since Hoover has lost as many jobs during his tenure as Bush. He turned a 300 billion yearly surplus into a 500 billion yearly deficit, for a net setback of 800 billion dollars a year. 9/11 or no, this didn't have to happen, and no president with even a modicum of fiscal responsibility would have allowed it to. I can objectively say that each single prisoner interred in Cuba today, and each day since their capture, has not and is not going to participate actively in a terrorist action against me or America. A percentage of those people in Cuba wouldn't have done so anyway, but now that they've been denied due process of law they will indefinitely be denied the right to prove that fact. If I were to put you in a prison camp without due process or access to a lawyer I could objectively say that you would not participate actively in a terrorist action "against me or America" but that still wouldn't make it right. Also, are you trying to imply that any other person in the presidency would have basically done nothing after 9/11? Made no effort to find, detain, and try active and potential terrorists? I guarantee you, objective as day, that they won't take place in any more terror attacks. I also assure you that their will be no more training camps in Afghanistan that train Muslims to kill us. Oh, you "assure" me do you? Well I guess I can sleep easily now that somebody on a mushroom site has assured me that things are okay. Dude, you have no idea what you're talking about. The US only controls Kabul, and God only knows what's actually going on in the rest of Afghanistan. Bin Laden is running terrorist training camps as we speak somewhere on the Pakistan-Afghan border. Terrorists are conducting daily raids with impunity on American forces in Iraq. Obviously they're being trained somewhere. Meanwhile, Bush's foreign policy is spawning countless new recruits, financial backers, and believers in the cause. It certaintly isn't his fault. As I said, name a president that could have dealt with a tragedy like 9/11 and the subsequent war in Afghanistan without some negative effects on the country. Bush isn't bumbling and accidentally dropping nukes out of the sky on us, shit happens and you respond to it. Many presidents besides Bush, including his father, don't launch massive military campaigns unless they're necessary. You can argue all you want about whether the war in Iraq was "right", but there's no way you can argue that it was necessary. The war has raped the taxpayer out the ass, resulted in hundreds of military deaths and thousands of wounded, and done nothing tangible to make Americans safer. If that money had been spent on homeland security and disaster preparedness Americans would be many orders of magnitude safer than they are now. Do some research on how little funding local police and emergency response forces have actually received from the federal government, even money that was promised and never delivered. It certaintly isn't his fault. As I said, name a president that could have dealt with a tragedy like 9/11 and the subsequent war in Afghanistan without some negative effects on the country. Bush isn't bumbling and accidentally dropping nukes out of the sky on us, shit happens and you respond to it. And Bush takes no responsibility for the extent of what happened on 9/11? It happened under his watch. Dozens of fumbled leads in the months leading up to 9/11, no fighters scrambled (or ready to be scrambled) half an hour, forty-five minutes, a full hour after it was clear as day that something was terribly wrong. And now the administration is stonewalling its own independent commission to investigate the tragedy. The administration can't be blamed for everything that happened on 9/11, but things didn't have to be as bad as they were, and Bush certainly can be blamed for not being more cooperative with the Kean Commission. But I know I'm just wasting my breath. You like the guy and no amount of factual history is going to change that. Fine by me.
| |||||||
 Ravus Not an EggshellWalker   Registered: 07/18/03 Posts: 7,991 Loc: Cave of the Patr |
| ||||||
|
There are plenty of excuses both for and against America's shittiness under Bush: he lived in a bad time, 9/11 wasn't his fault, the economy wasn't his fault, he's trying to help, and so on. To be honest, IMHO, the man's just an idiot, and I can think that many other presidents could've handled everything better and done a much better job than Bush, even in our times of need. He's war hungry, conservative, completely anti-drug, even for medicinal marijuana patients, he can't speak in public, and he has absolutely no redeeming qualities at all. Everyone has their own opinion, but I wonder how anyone besides those in the deep deep South could actually support this bumbling idiot.
-------------------- So long as you are praised think only that you are not yet on your own path but on that of another. Edited by Ravus (02/09/04 09:16 PM)
| |||||||
|
infidelGOD illusion  Registered: 04/18/02 Posts: 3,040 Loc: there |
| ||||||
|
can objectively say that each single prisoner interred in Cuba today
lol. was that intentional?
| |||||||
|
silversoul7 Chill the FuckOu  Registered: 10/10/02 Posts: 27,301 Loc: mndfreeze's pupp |
| ||||||
|
I have a friend back home who I explained the whole neo-con, PNAC thing to him about the new imperialism, and I found out he actually supported the idea of the U.S. being an international police power. I figured I couldn't really argue with him after that, since obviously his values are way different than my own.
--------------------  
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire 
| |||||||
|
TheOneYouKnow addict Registered: 01/04/04 Posts: 470 Last seen: 22 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
How many presidents have had to deal with 9/11?
You asked me for one objective thing that he's done that improved our safety. Each person there OBJECTIVELY will not, while interred, be a terrorist. You didn't ask me about the interest of Afghani's, I believe you said specifically Americans, right? Changing the question doesn't make my answer wrong...
Uh, where did I even remotely say that? What I actually said was the direct opposite of that, that is, if Gore had been president, while we would still have our civil rights, the economy would have been fucked after 9/11 as well, and he would have to be doing something that would increase government spending. So, are you trying to prove my point as well, or?
When I string sentances together, lets refer to that as a paragraph. When I do that, I'll be using a continuing thought process throughout. I assure you, under penalty of castration, that absolutly NO dead Afghani's will participate in terrorist attacks, do you think thats wrong, do you not know how to or appreciate the value of reading, or are you just enjoying changing the questions you've asked after I answered them to the best of how you describe them? Maybe Micheal Moore could use your help in his next movie...
I call, show me the proof of this.
I'd hardly say that their attacks go on. Obviously they're being trained somewhere. Meanwhile, Bush's foreign policy is spawning countless new recruits, financial backers, and believers in the cause. It certaintly isn his fault. As I said, name a president that could have dealt with a tragedy like 9/11 and the subsequent war in Afghanistan without some negative effects on the country. Dumbass Bush isn't bumbling and accidentally dropping nukes out of the sky on us, shit happens and you respond to it. Many presidents besides Bush, including his father, don't launch massive military campaigns unless they're necessary. You can argue all you want about whether the war in Iraq was "right", but there's no way you can argue that it was necessary. The war has raped the taxpayer out the ass, resulted in hundreds of military deaths and thousands of wounded, and done nothing tangible to make Americans safer. If that money had been spent on homeland security and disaster preparedness Americans would be many orders of magnitude safer than they are now. Do some research on how little funding local police and emergency response forces have actually received from the federal government, even money that was promised and never delivered. It certaintly isn't his fault. As I said, name a president that could have dealt with a tragedy like 9/11 and the subsequent war in Afghanistan without some negative effects on the country. Bush isn't bumbling and accidentally dropping nukes out of the sky on us, shit happens and you respond to it. And Bush takes no responsibility for the extent of what happened on 9/11? It happened under his watch. Dozens of fumbled leads in the months leading up to 9/11, no fighters scrambled (or ready to be scrambled) half an hour, forty-five minutes, a full hour after it was clear as day that something was terribly wrong. And now the administration is stonewalling its own independent commission to investigate the tragedy. The administration can't be blamed for everything that happened on 9/11, but things didn't have to be as bad as they were, and Bush certainly can be blamed for not being more cooperative with the Kean Commission. But I know I'm just wasting my breath. You like the guy and no amount of factual history is going to change that. Fine by me. -------------------- Opinions are like assholes; everyone needs one or else they'd explode
| |||||||
|
silversoul7 Chill the FuckOu Registered: 10/10/02 Posts: 27,301 Loc: mndfreeze's pupp |
| ||||||
I believe that day comes once a year, so I would venture to say that every president has. --------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
| |||||||
|
EchoVortex (hard) member Registered: 02/06/02 Posts: 859 Last seen: 18 years, 20 days |
| ||||||
|
How many presidents have had to deal with 9/11?
Ah, yes, the good old American pastime: making excuses. There's always an excuse for everything: "my parents were cold to me as a child," "nobody told me," "it's not my job," etc. I suppose 9/11 forced Bush to push forward additional tax cuts despite the better advice of his former Treasury Secretary. I suppose 9/11 forced Bush to spend like a socialist on cocaine on just about everything EXCEPT homeland security. I suppose 9/11 is supposed to give Bush a free pass for every single fuck-up of the last three years. Sorry dude, but those days are over. People are beginning to wake up to the fact that the buck has to stop somewhere, and even if Bush isn't man enough to take responsibility for what happens under his watch it's eventually going to land on his shoulders anyway. You asked me for one objective thing that he's done that improved our safety. Each person there OBJECTIVELY will not, while interred, be a terrorist. You didn't ask me about the interest of Afghani's, I believe you said specifically Americans, right? Changing the question doesn't make my answer wrong... And if there are two new terrorists (or even one) for every one interned(to "inter" means to bury, by the way) in Gitmo how are we safer? You're making the same mistake the US made in Vietnam: measuring progress by body counts. "The more people we have in prison, the safer we are." It doesn't matter if you have a million people incarcerated if the five who have the resources and know-how to get a dirty bomb into NYC are running loose. Am I statistically safer from terrorism now than I was in January 2001 when Bush took office? No. Uh, where did I even remotely say that? What I actually said was the direct opposite of that, that is, if Gore had been president, while we would still have our civil rights, the economy would have been fucked after 9/11 as well, and he would have to be doing something that would increase government spending. So, are you trying to prove my point as well, or? Neither you nor I know exactly what would have happened after January 2001 if Gore (or McCain for that matter) were president . 9/11 might have been averted for all we know. The "butterfly effect" in which small initial changes can lead to huge differences in outcome make any speculations in counterfactual history a waste of time. We can only hold Bush accountable for his own actions. When I string sentances together, lets refer to that as a paragraph. When I do that, I'll be using a continuing thought process throughout. I assure you, under penalty of castration, that absolutly NO dead Afghani's will participate in terrorist attacks, do you think thats wrong, do you not know how to or appreciate the value of reading, or are you just enjoying changing the questions you've asked after I answered them to the best of how you describe them? Maybe Micheal Moore could use your help in his next movie... And I repeat once again for your edification that body counts do not prove a net increase in safety. The question is: are we safer now than we were in January, 2001? Nobody knows the answer to that question--you cannot give Bush credit for an accomplishment that cannot be verified. Things may be okay today but tomorrow could bring new horrors. On the other hand, we can say that there were serious lapses on the part of both the Clinton and Bush administrations leading up to 9/11. If the attack had occurred in February of 2001 the blame could be squarely blamed on the Clinton administration, but that's not how it happened. I call, show me the proof of this. As long as he's unaccounted for you can be sure of it. On a smaller scale than before, perhaps, but he's still leading the organization and training continues in different parts of the world. Camps were recently discovered in Saudi Arabia, and there are also thought to be camps in the Caucuses. http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,8554111%255E401,00.html http://www.americanintelligence.us/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1118 http://www.pakistan-facts.com/article.php/20030901121712962 http://www.pakistan-facts.com/article.php/20030124094304757 I'd hardly say that their attacks go on. You'd hardly say what? http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040201/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_161 I think I'm beginning to see the problem. You don't follow the news do you? Dumbass Bush isn't bumbling and accidentally dropping nukes out of the sky on us, shit happens and you respond to it. So we're supposed to admire and feel grateful to the man for not dropping nukes on us? This is your standard for a good president? Bush oversaw the worst domestic security failure in the history of the United States. There are over 2 million fewer jobs now than when Bush took office and a record deficit. Our civil liberties have been significantly curtailed. The country is bitterly divided over a war that wasn't necessary and fought on false premises. If Bush were a CEO he would have been fired by now for a performance like this. If he were a middle manager or lower he would have been fired a long, long time ago. Shit man, I don't hate the guy because he's a Republican, I hate him because he's an idiot and a menace to my country. I'm sure McCain would have been ten times better, but I guess Republicans, if given a choice between nominating a cripple and a retard, choose the retard.
| |||||||
|
Strumpling Neuronaut Registered: 10/11/02 Posts: 7,571 Loc: Hyperspace Last seen: 15 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
"the sad thing is that i don't think there has been a single president in a long time that has made this country more free or prosperous."
hehe bush has made great progress in making our country "free" to do whatever its leaders want to anybody -------------------- Insert an "I think" mentally in front of eveything I say that seems sketchy, because I certainly don't KNOW much. Also; feel free to yell at me. In addition: SHPONGLE
| |||||||
|
afoaf CEO DBK?  Registered: 11/08/02 Posts: 32,665 Loc: Ripple's Heart |
| ||||||
|
We can't fight the war on terror by being scared to strike back. These people can't do anything to us that we can't do to their homelands to an exponential power. I can give you the numbers for how many terrorist are no longer in the picture, can you give me the number you ask for ?
Obviously not, that's the great unknown...that's what's so frightening. Let's say we completely wiped out Al Queda without addressing the root problem, who is the next Osama and where will he strike? you can't fight an effective war on terror without getting to the root of the problem. Continuing the bully on the block act will do nothing more but spawn more terrorist organizations. rarely is the question asked is our children causing more terrorism by perpetuating the foreign policies that got us here in the first place? Detail exactly how Bush, independant of any effects of 9/11, caused these problems. In other words, remove every expendature for homeland security and other 9/11 created jobs and positions, remove every amount of money lost due to the economy after 9/11, and show how we'd still be as fucked as you think we are WITHOUT 9/11, solely due to bush. Clearly, you won't be able to. So, Bush is innocent, it's all 9/11's fault? How about you demonstrate that it's all 9/11's fault? Clearly, you won't be able to. You seem to be forgetting that the economy was tanking long before september 11th. And to exasperate this, he cut taxes when federal revenue was already waning and expenditures skyrocketing. What's the solution? Let's let mexicans come here, work legally and we'll be able to gleen a little extra tax revenue from them. great, there's more american jobs out the window and carte blanc for american industry to perpetuate the labor practices that have alienated american workers and promoted illegal immigration. (read: walmart) but it doesn't solve the problem that the government is spending more than it is bringing in. and it's not like Bush is spending money on first responders, homeland security, even education. -------------------- All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.
| |||||||
|
infidelGOD illusion Registered: 04/18/02 Posts: 3,040 Loc: there |
| ||||||
 I guess some people have higher standards for the presidency.
| |||||||
|
TheOneYouKnow addict Registered: 01/04/04 Posts: 470 Last seen: 22 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
Their is a linguistical lesson you need to learn, it follows; Ex?cuse ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-skyz) tr.v. ex?cused, ex?cus?ing, ex?cus?es To explain (a fault or an offense) in the hope of being forgiven or understood: He arrived late and excused his tardiness in a flimsy manner. To apologize for (oneself) for an act that could cause offense: She excused herself for being late. To grant pardon to; forgive: We quickly excused the latecomer. To make allowance for; overlook: Readers must excuse the author's youth and inexperience. See Synonyms at forgive. To serve as justification for: Brilliance does not excuse bad manners. To free, as from an obligation or duty; exempt: In my state, physicians and lawyers are excused from jury duty. To give permission to leave; release: The child ate quickly and asked to be excused. and now... 7 entries found for reason. rea?son ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rzn) n. The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction. See Usage Note at because. See Usage Note at why. A declaration made to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction: inquired about her reason for leaving. An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence: There is reason to believe that the accused did not commit this crime. The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence. Good judgment; sound sense. A normal mental state; sanity: He has lost his reason. Logic. A premise, usually the minor premise, of an argument. It wasn't an EXCUSE, it was a REASON. To use your favorite word, it's not my subjective opinion that the 9/11 attacks harmed America's economy, it is objective fact. Thus, I'm not trying to cover up or admit fault, I'm explaining the causal factor for the said phenomenon.
Is the economy or is it not getting better?
The Liberal Song Chorus - "we want social programs, thats what we should do with the monies of the evil rich" First Verse- "Bush shouldn't spend so much money on social programs" I'm sure that when Kerry talks about the social programs he'll unveil, you'll repeat the chorus, right?
Simply because I don't agree with your extreme view of a situation doesn't mean that I beleive the exact opposite of the extreme. Bush has done a number of what you call "fuck ups", but you can't say that the majority of the economical problems were at least somewhat affected directly by 9/11.
I'd agree with freezing the majority of social programs, such as welfare, to fund our war on terror abroad, and the enacting of the SAFE act and more funding to homeland security so that terrorists within can be caught. There, buck stopped.
Useless comment.
I think you need to understand what you actually asked, and that my answer totally fulfilled that goal. I can OBJECTIVELY (check www.dictionary.com for this and subjective) say that not one dead al-Qeada terrorist in Afghanistan that died as a direct result of the war that Bush led agains tthem will be a terrorist. What you are doing is saying SUBJECTIVE things about the POSSIBLE, UNPROVEN ramifications of that. Geez, if you want to ask an academic question, learn what words you are using first.
It would matter more from 9/11/01 or from the Iraq war. Either way, why don't you prove that using your favorite little word, objectively?
If any person could have been juxtaposed into the position of presidency and the same financial ramifcations had occured, the logical conclusion would be that it would matter not who was currently in the position because any person in that position would have caused the same thing. This means, you got it, that it was 9/11, not the presidency. What would Al Gore have done? I don't know, you'd have to ask him. Since I didn't find anything when I searched about it, I don't know. Even if I did know, it wouldn't be "objective" enough, eh?
Is that logical leap evidence of your lust for objectivity? The butterfly effect, "maybe", "possibly"? If they were planning the actions before Bush came to office, I don't think you could "objectivly" say what would have happened either way, but you just said (read above) that if Gore (or whomever) was in office, the adversse financial reactions would still occur, most likely.
After 9/11, he was re-acting to those events, but no matter who was in office, the financial chaos would still have occured.
Tell me how you could possibly "objectivly" tell that we were safer from the terrorists. If they are dead, they won't attack. Give me examples that you think are apt.
Not very objective.
Hah, sorry I got stoned during the middle of that post and I kind of spaced out :-) I'd hardly say that their attacks go on with impunity. We strick back at these men frequently, remember Uday, Qusay, Saddam, the numerous night-vision shots we see on TV showing raids? It's not like we are cowering in fear, and it's not like we haven't already kicked their asses.
Wasn't Clinton given information as to the problem of Osama as well? Thought so. I have to run now, I'll deal with the rest of this later.
| |||||||
|
EchoVortex (hard) member Registered: 02/06/02 Posts: 859 Last seen: 18 years, 20 days |
| ||||||
|
It wasn't an EXCUSE, it was a REASON. To use your favorite word, it's not my subjective opinion that the 9/11 attacks harmed America's economy, it is objective fact.
Now you're making excuses for the fact that you're making excuses
The cycle never ends, does it? Of course an event of that nature would harm a nation's economy. What you have not proven, however, is that it should hurt it that much and for that long. And there's the inconvenient little fact that the economy had turned south even before 9/11. Is the economy or is it not getting better? Not in terms of job growth. Not in terms of the strength of the dollar. There were a couple of quarters of serious growth, but now that consumers have already spent their tax rebates we'll see what happens. In any event, the economy is still worse than when he took office. Chorus - "we want social programs, thats what we should do with the monies of the evil rich" First Verse- "Bush shouldn't spend so much money on social programs" Where did I ever mention social programs? but you can't say that the majority of the economical problems were at least somewhat affected directly by 9/11. You can't say that? Isn't that what you've been saying? Maybe you should look up the word "not" in your trusty dictionary there. I'd agree with freezing the majority of social programs, such as welfare, to fund our war on terror abroad, and the enacting of the SAFE act and more funding to homeland security so that terrorists within can be caught. There, buck stopped. By stopping the buck I mean taking responsibility. You know, as in "The Buck Stops Here" and "passing the buck." You should also look up the word "responsibility." I can OBJECTIVELY (check www.dictionary.com for this and subjective) say that not one dead al-Qeada terrorist in Afghanistan that died as a direct result of the war that Bush led agains tthem will be a terrorist. You can objectively say that they will be terrorists from beyond the grave? Dude, you really, really need to look up that word "not." The number of dead or captured people does not prove that we are objectively safer. Let me give you an example that might hopefully help you to get your head around this fact: Have you ever heard of the "War on Drugs"? Much like the "War on Terror" it is being fought as a war of attrition. Over the years, literally hundreds of thousands of people in this country have been put in prison for selling or using drugs. The US now has the largest prison population in the world, both in sheer numbers and per capita, largely because of this "War on Drugs." Has the fact that those hundreds of thousands of people are in prison stopped the use of drugs? Nope, not by a long shot. Has it stopped the illegal import, cultivation, manufacture, and sale of drugs? Nope, not by a long shot. It has made drugs more expensive and less safe. It has needlessly ruined countless lives, and led to numerous deaths, both of traffickers and of law enforcement officials. But the "War on Drugs" has been a losing proposition ever since Nixon announced it over thirty years ago. It would matter more from 9/11/01 or from the Iraq war. Huh? You really need to work on stringing words together. If any person could have been juxtaposed into the position of presidency and the same financial ramifcations had occured, the logical conclusion would be that it would matter not who was currently in the position because any person in that position would have caused the same thing. This means, you got it, that it was 9/11, not the presiden First of all, the word "juxtapose" means "to place side by side." One does not "juxtapose" somebody into a position. You should really improve your own mastery of the English language before you make a fool of yourself again presuming to give others lessons. Secondly, no, it is NOT a given logical conclusion that any person in that position would have caused the same thing. Human beings have the capacity to make decisions and take action--they are not merely passive victims of circumstance. The logical conclusion is that the situation we are in now is partly the result of circumstances, and partly the result of Bush's responses to circumstances. Other people would have responded differently. After 9/11, he was re-acting to those events, but no matter who was in office, the financial chaos would still have occured. A shock to the financial system would have occurred but shocks, if managed properly, do not necessarily lead to chaos. Tell me how you could possibly "objectivly" tell that we were safer from the terrorists. If they are dead, they won't attack. Give me examples that you think are apt. I didn't say we were safer when he took office. I'm saying that you cannot prove we are safer now. Once again, the raw number of dead or captured terrorists is moot, just as the raw number of imprisoned drug dealers is moot in the war on drugs. The supply is ever replenishable. From a statistical point of view, the number of Americans, both military and civilian, who have been killed by terrorist action during the Bush administration has been larger than during any other comparable period of time under any other president. I can state as a fact that, as an American, you have had a higher chance of being killed by a terrorist under Bush than under any other president. I'd hardly say that their attacks go on with impunity. We strick back at these men frequently, remember Uday, Qusay, Saddam, the numerous night-vision shots we see on TV showing raids? It's not like we are cowering in fear, and it's not like we haven't already kicked their asses. "Kicked their asses"? We may have killed or rounded up some of them, but as long as the attacks continue we haven't kicked anybody's ass. You really need to rise above this simplistic notion that cool video-game-like images of people getting shredded by bullets actually means that the situation is under control. Wasn't Clinton given information as to the problem of Osama as well? Thought so. Did you even read my post? I already stated that Clinton was also partly accountable for what happened on 9/11. Remember that part? Were you spacing out then, too? Maybe you should get that spacing out business under control before getting involved in debates. Still, Bush was President and in office for 8 months already when 9/11 occurred. The bulk of the responsibility is his. Keep making BS excuses and trying to deflect blame if you want.
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
| |||||||
|
afoaf CEO DBK? Registered: 11/08/02 Posts: 32,665 Loc: Ripple's Heart |
| ||||||
|
when walmart runs out of freedom cola.
-------------------- All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.
| |||||||
|
nicechrisman Interdimensional space wizard   Registered: 11/07/03 Posts: 33,241 Last seen: 7 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
|
I'm really embarassed by our president. I think that he has made us the laughing stock of the international community.
-------------------- "Cosmic Love is absolutelely ruthless and highly indifferent: it teaches its lessons whether you like/dislike them or not." John C. Lily   
| |||||||
|
Evolving Resident Cynic  Registered: 10/01/02 Posts: 5,385 Loc: Apt #6, The Vill |
| ||||||
|
I could care less about the U.S. being the laughing stock of the so-called, 'international community' (whatever that is). I am concerned about the growing fascism in my country and the inability or unwillingness of so many to recognize it.
-------------------- To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
I have nothing again our president... we have had worse and we have had better.
too not have him beleive in your way is an ingorant way to judge someone. I don't agree with all of his policies but in over all not that bad of a guy. I am sure if anyone here was a politician they would become the same person they hate. the day our country listens to minorites instead of the majority is a sad day. Most actions are geared towards the majority... so in conclusion, bitch all you want but realize you are in the minority. hell I am in the minority too but I realize it and bitching here and putting down someone that believes our president is an ok guy solves nothing, but of course it will boost your ego, so go ahead and take that boost.  P.S. this was geared towards noone in this particular thread.. more of a general statement since I felt an overwelming sense of hate in this thread. your favorite mod,   zerohero 
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
after reading my message, I have to comment on it again with a quote that I truly believe in, so that you might understand my personal opinion(beliefs), instead of the above observation I had made.
"If you are willing to give up a little bit of a freedom, for safety, then you deserve neither." 
| |||||||
|
afoaf CEO DBK? Registered: 11/08/02 Posts: 32,665 Loc: Ripple's Heart |
| ||||||
|
care to cite that one, chief?
-------------------- All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.
| |||||||
| |||||||
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
| Shop: All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies Spores for European Microscopy Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order Bulk Cannabis Seeds |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
 |
 |
American Intelligence |  somebodyelse |
865 | 12 | 06/20/03 12:40 PM by somebodyelse |
|
|
Every american - and anyone else alive. Read this (  1 2 all ) |
 BleaK |
2,431 | 27 | 11/17/19 09:41 AM by relic |
|
|
The best intelligence they have ( 1 2 all ) |
Xlea321 |
2,247 | 39 | 06/06/03 08:05 PM by silversoul7 |
|
|
Can a sitting president be charged with plagiarism |  Rono |
1,123 | 10 | 08/22/02 07:31 PM by JonnyOnTheSpot |
|
|
A view of American Foreign Policy |  Ped |
1,261 | 8 | 09/09/03 06:11 PM by afoaf |
|
|
THE ANTI-ANTI-AMERICANS |  wingnutx |
1,810 | 17 | 08/27/03 01:49 PM by luvdemshrooms |
|
|
Requirements for a President ( 1 2 3 4 all ) |
 GazzBut |
2,191 | 68 | 09/10/03 04:05 PM by luvdemshrooms |
|
|
Love your country. ( 1 2 3 all ) |
GazzBut |
2,017 | 41 | 07/30/03 08:37 AM by GernBlanston |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 7,575 topic views. 2 members, 41 guests and 21 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||
