inaguaration protestors

Posted by: Lincoln

inaguaration protestors - 17/01/05 06:18 PM

Violent protests are planned for the innaguration by the left.

Anarchists, hippy assholes, and ridiculous groups like A.N.S.W.E.R. are preparing to make America look ridiculous.

These stupid fucks just want to be a part of something and they think it is cool to be apart of a protest.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 17/01/05 07:16 PM

Quote:
These stupid fucks just want to be a part of something and they think it is cool to be apart of a protest.
Oh I know. Our government should crush these protesters and imprison them for crimes against the regime.
Posted by: Lincoln

Re: inaguaration protestors - 17/01/05 07:31 PM

I suppose I may have been a little harsh with my words, let me explain:

So many of the people that march in these parades have absolutly no idea what they are marching for, or against. They march just because it is fashionable to protest and go against the government if you are a college student or younger.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 17/01/05 07:36 PM

I agree, but c'mon, we were all young once. Even I had an opinion or two in my earlier years, before it was beat out of me by life. It's just entertaining now. Rest assured, the president and supporters will not see any of it - the protesters are so removed from the whole ceremony, according to our reporters setting up shop in Washington.
Posted by: Excelagator

Re: inaguaration protestors - 17/01/05 07:36 PM

Quote:
So many of the people that march in these parades have absolutly no idea what they are marching for, or against. They march just because it is fashionable to protest and go against the government if you are a college student or younger.[/QB]
Maybe it is because they never could make it in Band??

Dan
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 04:00 AM

My girlfriend just got back from D.C., when she was there she bought me a t-shirt with Bush's face on it saying "Inauguration 2005." Ahhh I can't wait to wear it and piss people off...

On a side note, she also got me playing cards with Bush's face and golf balls with the republican elephant (no I'm not a nutjob, theyre just gags for a laugh or two).

Last year some girl in my school won the NY State Humanitarian of the Year award. Basically she was just an incendiary bitch who protested anything and everything. Smoked so much pot she couldn't tell her own ass from her face (though most people couldn't either). She once told me I was a facist and said I shouldn't be allowed to vote cause I said there needs to be tighter border patrol. Some humanitarian.

Its my experience that people like this hold opinions without any concept of fact or reality. They just loll around saying "Bush baaad... communism gooood..."
Posted by: monkeyman

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 05:03 AM

will the protesters all be wearing a colored wrist band of some sort? :rolleyes:
Posted by: MBFlyerfan

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 05:08 AM

Let them protest. Its my experience that these people are just preaching to thier particular chior. Their methods usually end up turning off those that they are trying to influence, namely those that are on the fence or have views that differ from thier own.

You will see lots of those espousing socialism and communism. You will see them comparing Bush to Hitler and the Nazis. You will see them saying he lied. You will see them saying America is bad. They will be violent , they will be vulgar, they will be irrelevant.
Posted by: Lincoln

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 05:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MBFlyerfan:
Let them protest. Its my experience that these people are just preaching to thier particular chior. Their methods usually end up turning off those that they are trying to influence, namely those that are on the fence or have views that differ from thier own.

You will see lots of those espousing socialism and communism. You will see them comparing Bush to Hitler and the Nazis. You will see them saying he lied. You will see them saying America is bad. They will be violent , they will be vulgar, they will be irrelevant.
The problem with this is this is the pulse of the democratic party. Kids running around comparing Bush to Hitler, inciting violence ect.

Maybe they will not be a big part of the innaguaration and they won't take away from it, but there is one horrible thing they will do.

They will make the "insurgents" in Iraq and terrorists everywhere think that they have support in America. The media will give them tons of airtime, and it will undoubtly get back to Al Jazeera and Europe and it will be played on high rotation. They may not realize it, but they are feeding the enemy and our troops lives are at stake.

The same bullshit happened during Vietnam. We didn't lose the war over in Vietnam, we lost it over here. If they hate America so much, they can always leave.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 06:14 AM

The plus side if all of this is, if the Democrats keep this up, they will loose the next election also.

You would think someone in the Party would be smart enough to "get a clue".

They are all too self focused to care what negative effect they are having on the troops and the situation in Iraq.
Posted by: Andre the Giant

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 06:54 AM

Let them protest. Let them look like the extremeists they are. It's too bad one of the networks won't interview some of these zealots and expose how ignorant they really are. (Sean Hannity has done this on his radio show before. Protestors outside his studio were against Bush. When he asked them who they were going to vote for, one of them answered "Jim Karney." Comeon, if you don't know the fucking NAME of the candidate you supposedly support, you probably don't know what you're protesting about either.)
Posted by: Weasel

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 06:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln:

They will make the "insurgents" in Iraq and terrorists everywhere think that they have support in America. The media will give them tons of airtime, and it will undoubtly get back to Al Jazeera and Europe and it will be played on high rotation. They may not realize it, but they are feeding the enemy and our troops lives are at stake.

The same bullshit happened during Vietnam. We didn't lose the war over in Vietnam, we lost it over here. If they hate America so much, they can always leave.
Exactly!!! Brilliant!!!

The first amendment should be postponed when the United States go to war!

It's the least we can do for the troops fighting for our freedoms!!
Posted by: Lincoln

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 07:00 AM

I am not saying that they shouldn't be allowed to protest, I am just saying that if the media gives huge coverage to this...that it would be detrimental to the safety of our troops.

I fully support their right to protest, I am merely commenting on how they probably don't even know what they are protesting against.

Now, I want you to find somewhere in my posts where I said that their first ammendment right should be taken away. Stop making false accusations, or start backing them up.

:rolleyes:
Posted by: MBFlyerfan

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 07:05 AM

Weasel, you sound exactly like the ones we are talking about: Shrill, hysterical, and ridiculous. I read Lincoln's posts and still dont understand how what you said has any bearing or connection to what he said.

I for one, hope you and your ilk continue to react this way. It exposes you for what you really are and what you really believe. You and your types cant have rational debate because you are not rational.

I love it.
Posted by: Weasel

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 07:16 AM

Well apparently protesting a war president is the same as aiding and abeding the enemy.

"They may not realize it, but they are feeding the enemy and our troops lives are at stake."

Therefore, what you are really saying is
Protesting the government = Treason

Its not that much of a jump in logic that if you believe that you would most likely believe that the 1st amendment should be "postponed" during a war

Most of you crazies write about this insessantly, complaining about why people protest their "Messisah President"

You fundi's are scary
Posted by: Lincoln

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 07:17 AM

Weasel...you and your friends need to watch who you are associating yourself with. These people are complete idiots and I don't quite think you want to be in the same boat as them.

In this one these protestors are protesting infront of a military recruiting station...way to support the troops!
http://www.sfpw.net/militaryshield.html

Here is another:

http://www.sfpw.net/rightrain.html

And another:

http://www.sfpw.net/debatedefense.html

I challenge you to watch these, and see if you still support these people.....then tell me who is crazy.

I await your response...
Posted by: Weasel

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 07:19 AM

Look if you want to start comparing loonies from each side "bring em on"

Hell, I can put links to the Klan, Aryan Nations, the Christian Coalition, God Hates Fags, Militia Mountain Men, Branch Dividians,the hundreds of evanglical "Rapture Republican" too.

Sooooooo, If you voted for Bush then you must LOVE the Klan.
(your logic not mine)
Posted by: MBFlyerfan

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 07:27 AM

There you go again, telling us what we are really saying. We disagree with what they say and see the logical conclusion between thier words and thier effect on international politics.

You would say to us that it has no effect on what our enemies do or think. That of course, is ridiculous.

Our enemies use these protests in thier propaganda and news to try to portray us in a negative light. Common sense would tell you that.

Do we not have a right to come to this conclusion and have an opinion on it? Who is the one trying to suppress the first ammendment?

Not once has anyone said these people should be stopped or arrested. Unless they break laws, but then again you liberals view laws as suggestions as well. With free speech comes responsibility, your side shows none.

I always hear your side complain that you dont have a voice (except for hollywood and the news media I guess). Yet fail to realize that the voice for the other side is just stronger.

I love that your side gets out there and protests. I love that the media gives you all the attention. It shows the rest of the country just how insane and out of touch you people are. Sure the drawback is that Europe and the rest of the world get a biased view of what we represent. But in the end, Bush is POTUS, not President of the World, or President of What Europe Thinks.

They will hate us until they need us. And they always need us. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! [Finger]
Posted by: Lincoln

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 07:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Weasel:
Hell, I can put links to the Klan, Aryan Nations, the Christian Coalition, God Hates Fags, the hundreds of evanglical "Rapture Republican" too.
Tell me what these groups have to do with the war and the troops.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 07:33 AM

It's no different than all the black kids here in Phoenix using the MLK celebration as an excuse to get in a bunch of fights. Protests are little more than social gatherings for other protestors.

If the libs would only stop and think strategically instead of "idealistically" for a change. Utopias don't exist. They can't exist.

Lincoln, good posting man! You're dead on with your comments.
Posted by: MBFlyerfan

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 07:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Weasel:
Look if you want to start comparing loonies from each side "bring em on"

Hell, I can put links to the Klan, Aryan Nations, the Christian Coalition, God Hates Fags, the hundreds of evanglical "Rapture Republican" too.

Sure you can, but the difference is that for your side, the loonies are the loudest and most listened to voices. You shout down the more moderate voices and call them fascists. Scream about the first ammendment. I doubt you would find any of those groups linked from the RNC website. Or proudly mentioned as supporters. Your side , on the other hand, seems to worship groups like moveon and ANSWER. Its all about perception. Your freak side seems to associate those hate groups with the republicans, but the moderates and people in the middle dont. However EVERYONE associates your freaks with the mainstream of your party. Because you embrace them. Howard Dean did more for the republican party than any candidate could have. I love him for it. [Spit]
Posted by: Weasel

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 07:35 AM

What would be your answer to protestors Lincoln?

Nice backpeddling BTW

Your initial beef was with these terrorist supporting protestors, now its with the terrorist loving media.

Who are you mad at this time.

Dude, just come out of the closet and say it to the world you'll feel better.

You cannot stand the thought of an active 1st amendment during a war.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 07:39 AM

I feel as though I'm taking a "risk" posting in this section of the forum, not only because I'm a democrat, but also because I'm gay. True, I don't support the war, but I still support the troops who are there risking their lives. They're doing the job they signed up to do, and for that, I commend them. Do you think every single soldier in Iraq agrees with what they were sent there for? Highly unlikely. But, they're doing it because they wanted to be in the military and serve their country.

I don't support Bush's policies at all. I'm not some homo that wears it on my sleeve - it's a part of who I am, but it does not completely make up who I am. However, when a President wants to ammend the constitution to keep certain rights from a group of people, I just feel sad for our country as a whole. He's the only President in recent history who's wanted to keep a group of people from enjoying the same rights many other people enjoy.

The only protests I've heard about, are peaceful ones where demonstrators are going to the Inauguration and "turn their backs" on the President's motorcade.
Posted by: Lincoln

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 07:40 AM

What the hell are you talking about? I said that the media would give these idiots lots of airtime which would look to our enemies as if they have support over in the US.

I fully support the first ammendment, infact, I gave 6 years of my life to defend it.

What have you done?
Posted by: Weasel

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 07:55 AM

Ive kept it from being stripped away from fundi's like yourself.

If you really loved the 1st amendment then why are you worried about protestors, they come with territory.


Like I said, every group has weirdos, but singling them out of a larger, more peaceful group,to complain about protesting in general is just stupid.

During the Dr. King marches there were some nation of Islam weirdos who advocated violence and seperation that did march with Dr. King.

But if FOX news had been there they would have focused on those few weidos they would have made the entire movement as "hating America" too.

Just saying that freaks and weirdos are a part of every group, but it really a cheap shot to attack a movement because of it.

I dont make fun of your entire family just because you're functionally retarded.
Posted by: 2001frontier

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 08:07 AM

No one pays attention to these fucking idiots. They base their 'positions' on bullshit mainly. Half of them are completely clueless. The other half spew some crap they heard from the asshat next to them at the last protest. If you try to argue ANY point with them you are labeled a nazi automatically. A prime example of this can be seen on one of the Protest Warriors videos. They spot them, and notice the pro-Conservative signs and immediately start with the fasict and nazi comments. One actually tries to argue with one of the conservatives and it went something like this.

Hippie: We need to spend more money here because so many people are starving to death in our own country. (This has become a very recent argument for liberals. Quite a funny one too since they have long complained about how we should spend more on foreign aid.)
Conservative: Well, how many people actually starved to death here last year?
Hippie: Cracks a smile and admits she has no fucking clue.

They dress up like terrorists, desecrate the flag, and smell bad. If they ever had the revolution they want so dearly, they would be the weakest revolutionary force of all time. They would be decimated within hours. They don't realize that their own anti-gun attitude is exactly what would allow the government to turn totalitarian.

Their actions do bother me since we are at war. Their actions do have consequences. They of course won't think of them at all, or if they do realize their actions give comfort to the enemy would probably be happy about it. They are the zealots of the left. They would run this country into ruin if they had their way just because they have learned to be ashamed of being white people in college.

Their 'causes' are usually asinine. Little or no science or actual logical thought goes into them. Countless eco-nazi projects are prime examples of this. They often do more damage to the environment they love so much, than they help.
Posted by: 2001frontier

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 08:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Weasel:
Ive kept it from being stripped away from fundi's like yourself.

If you really loved the 1st amendment then why are you worried about protestors, they come with territory.


Like I said, every group has weirdos, but singling them out of a larger, more peaceful group,to complain about protesting in general is just stupid.

During the Dr. King marches there were some nation of Islam weirdos who advocated violence and seperation that did march with Dr. King.

But if FOX news had been there they would have focused on those few weidos they would have made the entire movement as "hating America" too.

Just saying that freaks and weirdos are a part of every group, but it really a cheap shot to attack a movement because of it.

I dont make fun of your entire family just because you're functionally retarded.
Nice try. The 'movement' is chock full of the fucking nimrods. I have been to several protests and they are largely made up of the freaks.
Posted by: Coop

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 08:17 AM

Democrats should be the ones worried... They're just pushing their party closer to the edge. Allowing Ted Kennedy to act as their mouthpeice as of late, and allowing these type of morons who will be protesting to be associated with their party just will further the party's shift into irrelevance.

For some reason they just can't see that they don't line up with what most americans want. You'd think the repeated loss of seats in congress might give them a clue, but apparently not.

The democrats in this country need to take control of their party, because at this rate, it will be gone in 15 years. As a republican, this makes me giggle a bit, but I know it's not what's best for the country. We would benifit from a strong democratic party that could provide positive solutions, instead of the negative disagreement it appears we'll see for the forseable future.

When it comes to the protesters... With freedom comes responsibility. Simply because you have a right to do something, does not mean you should. This is a concept that seems lost on these people. The vast majority of these people have never done anything to make this country better, they've done nothing to protect the rights they so casually abuse. Protesting without having a valid cause or solution is worthless.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 08:19 AM

I have to agree with saying the media, whether its CBS or FOX, focuses on the whackos more than the moderates. Nobody wants to hear about (or cover) the middle of the road, its just not good news.

Quote:
Violent protests are planned for the innaguration by the left.
The key word there is violent. What ever happened to civil disobedience, or non-violent protest. I recall reading about how Dr. King cried when one of his marches burst into a riot. If these people are planning violence, they should be jailed.

Though I may think theyre idiots, I got no problem with people protesting in front of military bases. If they want to protest in front of the capitol building, let them. Its when they start throwing rocks when things become a problem.

Just so you know, the 1st ammendment can actually be suspended in times of declared war. You can't openly declare anything that would implicate you in treason. Recall anarchist protestors during WWI and WWII...

edit: oh yea, about these people giving fodder to the terrorists and europeans: Who cares, we can turn their entire countrysides into crazed, unisexual orgies.
Posted by: Weasel

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 08:32 AM

Soooo fundi's

Any "final solutions" to this problem of the first admendment rights other than calling protestors and the media traitors?

I think all of the 50 million sum Americans who did not vote for Bush gave aid to the enemy as well come to think of it.

Hmmmmm

Hey its a war! You dont love the terrorists do you?
Posted by: 2001frontier

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 08:35 AM

You seem to be typical of these moron's it seems Weasal. Calling us fundis even though at least two of the people in this thread arguing with you aren't religious in the least. :rolleyes:
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 08:38 AM

I will be at the inauguration, at the swearing in ceremony, on the lawn of the Capitol. I'll do my best to get pictures of any of the extremist protestors that I see that day.

There is always some type of protest going on in Washington that I have become numb to seeing it.

This past summer, I made the mistake of getting off the subway right in the MIDDLE of the Pro-Choice march/protest. Wow, not a good day to be a male in the middle of millions of women who were ready to tear somebody apart.
Posted by: MBFlyerfan

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 08:42 AM

Digityzed, read a paper, oh wait, the news media will not report this. Bush is NOT going to pursue an ammendment outlawing Gay marriage. Do some research on the subject and see how the liberal media has been misleading you.

Weasel, you keep bringing up the first ammendment for some reason? Where has anyone here said these people dont have a right to say what they are saying? I think you are confusing our right to disagree with what they say with us somehow calling for the jackboots to be knocking in thier doors and hauling them off.

Face it, you only will defend the right to free speech as long as it is your view. When its against your view you complain about the first ammendment. You are probably the type of person who would call a boycott against Fahrenhiet 9/11 or the Dixie Chicks censorship. You people slay me. [Spit]

Quote:
You seem to be typical of these moron's it seems Weasal. Calling us fundis even though at least two of the people in this thread arguing with you aren't religious in the least.
Im an atheist!!!! [Laughing] [Spit]
Posted by: Weasel

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 08:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 2001frontier:
You seem to be typical of these moron's it seems Weasal. Calling us fundis even though at least two of the people in this thread arguing with you aren't religious in the least. :rolleyes:
Annoying and stupid isn't it?

Kinda like calling anyone who dissents with the government a "traitor and communist"
Posted by: MBFlyerfan

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 09:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Weasel:
Quote:
Originally posted by 2001frontier:
[b]You seem to be typical of these moron's it seems Weasal. Calling us fundis even though at least two of the people in this thread arguing with you aren't religious in the least. :rolleyes:
Annoying and stupid isn't it?

Kinda like calling anyone who dissents with the government a "traitor and communist"[/b]
You dont understand the difference do you? You feel that these people should be able to say whatever they want regardless of the truth or the effect. You dont see, or more likely dont care, about the effect these words and sometimes lies have on the country and the influence they have on our enemies.

I am sure you believe we are the evil hegemonic imperial empire who sole purpose is to take over the world for their oil and resources. How you can come to that conclusion is still beyond me. But you saying it gives ammunition to these extremists that want to kill us. That your side cant see it leads me to believe that either you are ignorant and easily influenced by propaganda, or that you really want to see us be injured and humiliated on the world stage.

It amazes me that you cannot see the correlation between the two, as if our enemies never watch our news and never use what is said to rally those to fight against us.

We dont want the government to prevent you from saying it, we want you to take responsibilty for what you say. The first ammendment should never enter into it.

I see it like this:

Would you air all your family secrets and problems at the local televised council meeting?

My country is my family and my home. Thats the difference between us. I dont share my families business good or bad with the rest of the nieghborhood. Inside my house I will protest vociferously. As soon as I know the nieghbors are listening I quiet down and whisper.

You dont have to agree with that point of view, but thats how we see it.
Posted by: Weasel

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 09:09 AM

MB
"Where has anyone here said these people dont have a right to say what they are saying?"

Lincoln
"They may not realize it, but they are feeding the enemy and our troops lives are at stake."

Me:

When the extremist right wingers call equivocate protesting one's government and treasonous behavior, it really is the next logical step to outlaw civil disobedience.

If civil disobedience during a war is treason (see above)
And treason is unlawful (obviously)
Then civil disobedience must be unlawful.

This kind of talk really is unhealthy and actually more "communist" than anything ive written here today.

You do understand that the "treason" objection is dangerous right?
Posted by: Coop

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 09:19 AM

I haven't seen Lincoln saying the government should stop these people.

He's saying that these people should exercise some responsibility, and realize their actions have a consequence.

Big difference.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 09:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MBFlyerfan:
Digityzed, read a paper, oh wait, the news media will not report this. Bush is NOT going to pursue an ammendment outlawing Gay marriage. Do some research on the subject and see how the liberal media has been misleading you.
I've done plenty of research, believe me. The reason he's not going to pursue it? Because the election is over. Bush won and pursuing it is a moot point, politically, for him. "Mission accomplished", indeed.

Maybe there needs to be a "no politics discussion" rule on this forum. I'm a member of a couple other forums (mostly music/band related) and they all have a rule like this, for this very reason. Discussions about politics don't really get anywhere on internet forums, because people will always think they're right and the other person is wrong. I suppose that can be applied to any subject, though. :rolleyes:
Posted by: Lincoln

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 09:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Weasel:
MB
"Where has anyone here said these people dont have a right to say what they are saying?"

Lincoln
"They may not realize it, but they are feeding the enemy and our troops lives are at stake."

Me:

When the extremist right wingers call equivocate protesting one's government and treasonous behavior, it really is the next logical step to outlaw civil disobedience.

If civil disobedience during a war is treason (see above)
And treason is unlawful (obviously)
Then civil disobedience must be unlawful.

This kind of talk really is unhealthy and actually more "communist" than anything ive written here today.

You do understand that the "treason" objection is dangerous right?
I love how you put words in my mouth. I have never said that the government should stop them or that they are commiting treason.

What is your story Weasel? Why do you hate America? Why don't you come out and say it? People like you will always find something to complain about in regards to the US, and you probably have nothing to compare it to.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 09:42 AM

Oy...

Look at it this way: Michael Moore took different videos of Condoleeza Rice and spliced them together to create a speech that never happened. In part of it, her blouse blatantly changes color, but people did not notice. It would be very easy for foreigners to get footage of a violent protest and say "You see, the Americans are dissenting. Soon there will be civil war and we are on the path to victory!" Its not that protestors are aiding terrorists, its the violence that aids propagandists.

All it takes is an idea; remember the hubub that came up when someone (Charles Rangel, NY-D) proposed a draft bill? Despite Bush (and many other prominent republicans like McCain) saying "there is no need for a draft, the all volunteer army works" people kept on believing it. Even just a few weeks ago I heard some woman on NPR talking about how she forced her kids to file for Canadian citizenship.

Its not the facts, its how people choose to view the facts. In this case, people who hate our country (not referring to protestors) want to use these facts (I mean video footage) against us. They easily can.

Side note: I've been to church once in my life. It was for my great uncle's 88th birthday/family reunion which I drove 6 hours to see. If that makes me a fundimentalist, then whoopty, break out the bread and wine.
Posted by: Weasel

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 09:43 AM

Hey Lincoln those are your quotes

If you have such a problem with America then go back to Cuba.

They dont really have to worry about problems of dissent.
Posted by: jerseydevi1

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 09:44 AM

Real quick point. Should I be upset that my first amendment right to say what I want is infringed upon when I get arrested for yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater when there is, in fact, no fire?

The logic here is that you have now crossed into what is more detrimental to the public safety, which is all anyone here has said.

Nobody wants 1st amendment rights infringed on, but as people who have these rights, aren't we to be held to a higher plane of responsibility?

Just because we CAN protest the war on an inauguration day in front of the whole world, doesn't necessarily mean we SHOULD.
Posted by: jerseydevi1

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 09:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Weasel:
Hey man those are your quotes
strong argument, weasel.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 09:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Digityzed:
because people will always think they're right and the other person is wrong. I suppose that can be applied to any subject, though. :rolleyes: [/QB]
They do end, you're wrong. HA laugh
Posted by: Lincoln

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 09:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by jerseydevi1:
Real quick point. Should I be upset that my first amendment right to say what I want is infringed upon when I get arrested for yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater when there is, in fact, no fire?

The logic here is that you have now crossed into what is more detrimental to the public safety, which is all anyone here has said.

Nobody wants 1st amendment rights infringed on, but as people who have these rights, aren't we to be held to a higher plane of responsibility?

Just because we CAN protest the war on an inauguration day in front of the whole world, doesn't necessarily mean we SHOULD.
Very good point. Should people be able to use their first ammendment right to tell people on an airplane that they are going to blow up a bomb?
Posted by: Weasel

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 09:47 AM

so protesting is now the equivilant yelling "fire" in a theatre?

How can you say they are the same??

OMG now you've lost it.

Just say it, lets suspend the 1st amendment until the war is over.

Quit being a pussy and say it
Posted by: Lincoln

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 09:50 AM

- Yelling fire in a theatre

- Calling Bush Hitler

- Saying that it is a war for oil

- Saying that Sadam needs to be released

- Saying that if a dictator provides food for his people, then they like that dictator

- Saying that it is Bush's fault that Iraq is a terrorist breeding ground

- Burning the flag and stomping on it

Actually, I would say that most of those things are worse than yelling "fire" in a theatre.
Posted by: Lincoln

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 09:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Weasel:
so protesting is now the equivilant yelling "fire" in a theatre?

How can you say they are the same??

OMG now you've lost it.

Just say it, lets suspend the 1st amendment until the war is over.

Quit being a pussy and say it
While you are talking about the first ammendment, lets talk about the right to bear arms.

I see that you are a hunter, how do you support a party that wants to take away guns from the citizens of the US?

Have you ever spent any time in a country outside the US Weasel?
Posted by: Weasel

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 09:53 AM

Your right those are all the same
:rolleyes:

Look man

It's not about Bush, its about democracy and the ability to yell at your government.

Why dont you understand that these are your rights too?!?

Why are you quick to surrender what so many have died defending?
Posted by: jerseydevi1

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 09:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Weasel:
so protesting is now the equivilant yelling "fire" in a theatre?

How can you say they are the same??

OMG now you've lost it.

Just say it, lets suspend the 1st amendment until the war is over.

Quit being a pussy and say it
Not for anything, but why the name calling? I was trying to illustrate a point that we need to be responsible with our right to free speech. No different than the responsibility we must show with our right to bear arms or vote.

Weasel, with every post you write, you reinforce what these people are saying about you.

I put up a post that was not inflammatory or attacking, yet you chose to call names. I talk about responsibility with our rights, and you go off about suspending them.

What happened to make you so angry? Did someone do you some great wrong that you are still fighting?

Your opinion is welcome, but there is no need to attack and flame someone that carries a different one.
(unless their name is WilMac laugh j/k)
Posted by: Lincoln

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 09:57 AM

It is because they start to realize that they are ridiculous and wrong, and start calling people names because the kool-aid that they were given to drink doesn't tell them what they should say when they start to realize that they are being ridiculous.

How does that kool-aid taste? Did you get it from Michael Moore, Kerry, or Clinton. Maybe Dean? The dems lost this election because there is no room for a moderate voice in the dem party. Only room for far left libs.
Posted by: Weasel

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 09:58 AM

Cry me river [Crybaby]

You loonies went from
1.protesting is aiding the enemy
to
2. Um its media whose aiding the enemy
to
3. Protesting is the same a yelling fire in a theatre
to
4.what? what!? no no were just saying be responsible here. It just common sense

Like rats from a sinking ship your argument has been abandoned.
Posted by: jerseydevi1

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 09:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Weasel:
Well apparently protesting a war president is the same as aiding and abeding the enemy.

"They may not realize it, but they are feeding the enemy and our troops lives are at stake."

Therefore, what you are really saying is
Protesting the government = Treason

Its not that much of a jump in logic that if you believe that you would most likely believe that the 1st amendment should be "postponed" during a war

Most of you crazies write about this insessantly, complaining about why people protest their "Messisah President"

You fundi's are scary
Didn't you post this already?
Posted by: Lincoln

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 09:59 AM

That is the natural flow of a debate Weasel. People have been backing up the original idea that the violent protests give comfort to the enemy.
Posted by: Weasel

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 10:04 AM

forget it

These are our rights.

Yours and mine.

Defend them, dont just play party politics.

Defend something greater then your stupid politician.

Democracy is too important to be this petty

Ive had enough of this innane conversation
Posted by: Lincoln

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 10:07 AM

I did defend them, and I will continue to. I will not however give someone a free pass that wants to burn my flag, stomp on it, compare my President with Hilter, and make the enemy think that they actually have support in America, especially when lots of these people are nothing but leaches to society. They sure take the tax payers money when it comes to student loans, welfare, ect. What have they done to earn it. How have they helped their country?

You can protest the government all you want, but if I ever catch anybody doing anything that will bring ill effects on our country, our troops, or our President....then I will do everything and anything in my power to stop them.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 10:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln:
- Yelling fire in a theatre

- Calling Bush Hitler

- Saying that it is a war for oil

- Saying that Sadam needs to be released

- Saying that if a dictator provides food for his people, then they like that dictator

- Saying that it is Bush's fault that Iraq is a terrorist breeding ground

- Burning the flag and stomping on it

Actually, I would say that most of those things are worse than yelling "fire" in a theatre.
[Freak]

Perhaps you should read up on the reasoning behind the "fire" quote?
Posted by: 2001frontier

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 10:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Weasel:
Quote:
Originally posted by 2001frontier:
[b]You seem to be typical of these moron's it seems Weasal. Calling us fundis even though at least two of the people in this thread arguing with you aren't religious in the least. :rolleyes:
Annoying and stupid isn't it?

Kinda like calling anyone who dissents with the government a "traitor and communist"[/b]
When I say that you may have a point. Calling someone a communist isn't a bad name to most of these people. Most of them are communists, and would gladly claim as much.

All you have done in this thread is ignore every single point anyone has made. Instead you claim we have all said things we haven't, and act like some pissy little bitch.

No one has said they should be stopped. No one has said they are traitors.

We have said some of their actions give aid to the enemy, whether they know it or not. We have also said most of them are completely uninformed and base all their positions on emotion instead of facts.

You have basically demonstrated the flawed thinking of the left. All emotion, no coherent thought, and repeating things with no bearing on the conversation over and over again hoping they will stick.
Posted by: 2001frontier

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 10:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Digityzed:

Maybe there needs to be a "no politics discussion" rule on this forum. I'm a member of a couple other forums (mostly music/band related) and they all have a rule like this, for this very reason. Discussions about politics don't really get anywhere on internet forums, because people will always think they're right and the other person is wrong. I suppose that can be applied to any subject, though. :rolleyes:
We have been getting along just fine for years on here, yelling and cussing at each other. It is fun, and those that contribute enjoy it. If you don't like it, don't read the threads.
Posted by: Lincoln

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 10:37 AM

Is this a joke, or is it serious? I wouldn't be surprised if it was serious.

http://communistsforkerry.com/
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 10:39 AM

I feel my original statement in this thread bears repeating.:

"They are all too self focused to care what negative effect they are having on the troops and the situation in Iraq."
Posted by: MichaelShaw

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 10:57 AM

I try to stay away from these discussions because everyone believes what they believe, and that will not change. However, do not equate these statements:
Quote:

- Yelling fire in a theatre

- Calling Bush Hitler

- Saying that it is a war for oil

- Saying that Sadam[sic] needs to be released

- Saying that if a dictator provides food for his people, then they like that dictator

- Saying that it is Bush's fault that Iraq is a terrorist breeding ground

- Burning the flag and stomping on it
The first of them causes an immediate threat to the safety and well-being of everyone in the immediate area. The rest are opinions, and nothing more. You may agree with all, some, or none of them. You may or may not think they are "harmful to the country" or "giving aid to the enemy." That is not at issue. What is at issue is that what makes the United States different than the rest of the world is that we CAN say those things. We are free to express our opinions in a manner free from restriction from our government. We are free to hold an opinion that our government has done wrong, and not have to fear the repercussions. Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is not stating an opinion...it is merely inciting public disorder with no conceivable positive result. That is why such exclamations are excluded from the "freedom of expression" definitions.

I think we should encourage everyone who wishes to do so to express their opinions...but just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make you or them right or wrong, and this petty namecalling lowers what began as a debate centered on issues to a childish shoving match.

I'm done. Let the shoving resume.
Posted by: Lincoln

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 11:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MichaelShaw:
Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is not stating an opinion...it is merely inciting public disorder with no conceivable positive result.
So is most of the marching and protesting. They ar emerely trying to incite public disorder with no conceivable positive result.

They do not have plausable solutions, if they have a solution at all. They merely want to incite anarchy, and they want to be part of some movement. Hell, many of them just want to get on TV, or start some violence.
Posted by: MBFlyerfan

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 11:24 AM

Just because you CAN say something, doesnt mean you should say something. That has everything to do with self responsibility and self control.

Weasel (fitting name), I still dont understand why you keep making this a first ammendment issue. I asked a question, you posted what Lincoln and I said, then went on some diatribe without ever proving your point. Ill ask again, where has anyone here said these people should be be not allowed to protest?

You scream and bellow about us wanting to take away first ammendment rights, yet cant point to one instance where we even mentioned it.

I for one, an glad for you and your types, it just makes it so much easier to win in the future. Scream all you want. Its amusing. [Spit]
Posted by: Coop

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 12:36 PM

What a lot of people don't seem to be able to distingish is citizens saying that these people should sit down and shut up, and the government prohibiting their protesting.

The former illustrates other citizens exercising their rights, by definition, a citizen CANNOT violate another citizen's first ammendment rights. The latter is nothing I've seen anyone calling for in this thread, just Weasel trying to put words in people's mouths.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 02:10 PM


Turn Your Back on Bush
Posted by: Lincoln

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 02:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by WilMac1023:

[b]Turn Your Back on Bush
[/b]
Good one Wilmac, I know of kids in Highschools that turn their back on the Pledge and the Star Spangled Banner also.
Posted by: 2001frontier

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 02:44 PM

Ah the resident socialist finally chimed in.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 02:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln:
These stupid fucks just want to be a part of something and they think it is cool to be apart of a protest.
I agree.

Why not let them be idiots, then.

It's their right as Americans. If they cross the line, It's law enforcement's job to deal with it. All of the leftists that are crying and raising hell about it are just adding fuel to the fire.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 02:56 PM

Free speech is a right. Violence is not. Its pretty simple. Just because you are in a mob doesn't mean laws don't apply. If you injure someone or break something you will be charged with assualt or vandalism. Thats what the original topic was, violent protests.
Posted by: MichaelShaw

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 05:13 PM

I would think that goes without saying.
Posted by: Excelagator

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 06:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln:
I am not saying that they shouldn't be allowed to protest, I am just saying that if the media gives huge coverage to this...that it would be detrimental to the safety of our troops.
These protestors really don't give a flying fuck for much. It probably is a bunch of spoiled rotted brats suckling from dad and mom's money. It is also sad to see fellow Americans protest like this when there are more important things like our troops overseas and some not coming home ever again. I think these protestors would be the same ones that would spit in the faces of returning service men and women. Which is a total sin in my eyes! They have the right to peacefully protest, that is it.

Dan
Posted by: Strider

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 07:00 PM

I say let them protest till the cows come home. It strengthens our democracy. I'm very conservative, yet I love to see the anarchist/hippie/vegatarian whetever types protesting, as it further emphasizes why we live in the greatest country on the face of the planet.

Also, I get a kick out of seeing anarchists band together to protest a government that lets them protest.

smile
Posted by: InfX708

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/01/05 09:45 PM

A few things I find amazing. Number one, Strider has been here almost as long as me and has fewer posts - haven't run across that one yet - except for people who joined last week. Number 2, everyone keeps referring to the U.S. - I assume - as a democracy. Folk's it's a republic. Democracies don't work any more than true communism or utopias. Democracies are more like, oh, I don't know, the democratic party. Everyone thinks they should have a say in what happens and pretty much pouts when they don't get their way. Number 3, this whole Constitutional ammendment thing. Didn't we learn anything from prohibition? You can't and shouldn't legislate morality. Is it really a threat to your way of life if two guys or gals want to get married? What's next, a push to prevent dog lovers from marrying cat lovers? As a guy, I see it simply as a reduction in the competition. I understand the arguement that perhaps God may not like it, but there are quite a few things we do on a daily basis that probably doesn't sit well either. In fact, if you consider the teachings of all the world's religions, everyone is going to hell. Obviously, something is faulty.
Protestors - who gives a damn? Think about it - it's a bunch of people throwing a collective temper tantrum because things aren't going their way. As far as giving aid the to the enemy, Congress and those wanting to prosecute people actually being shot at for killing an enemy, provide a lot more aid and comfort. If a guy has to worry everytime he thinks about pulling a trigger, the enemy has a chance to escape or worse, shoot back.
What I find to be the funniest statement of the century (so far) is "I (We) support our troops." How? Are you lobbying for the leveling of any city that has terrorist activities? In Vietnam, we used defoliants to deny the enemy a place to hide. Just think of a JDAM as "urban defoliant". Have you advocated unrestricted warfare? The bad guys certainly practice it. Don't give me any bullshit about lowering ourselves to their level either. War is war. If you want to win, you use all your assets. What we are doing now is masturbating in a brothel. The truth of the matter is, we don't want to win. We are trying to simply maintain the status quo - keep the terrorists at bay so we can live our little lives at home. The last time we actually fought with some balls was WWII. We firebombed whole cities. Hell, we used the most powerful weapon in our arsenal to end the war. Now we fight with lip service. I guess I'm drifting into a whole new thread, but I'm getting a bit tired of America bullshitting itself. Americans, as a whole have no clue what goes on outside our borders. Good example: A bunch of female Reps and Senators went to Iraq to help teach female candidates how to run a campaign. They showed up with buttons, signs, and bumper stickers. Ignoring the fact that a campaign button doesn't quite go with the traditional black robes you see women wearing all over Iraq, the biggest campaign problems these women face is staying alive until the election. If I were these women, I'd be a little nervous about trusting the US to provide security if that's how its lawmakers are.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 19/01/05 10:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Strider:
I say let them protest till the cows come home. It strengthens our democracy. I'm very conservative, yet I love to see the anarchist/hippie/vegatarian whetever types protesting, as it further emphasizes why we live in the greatest country on the face of the planet.

Also, I get a kick out of seeing anarchists band together to protest a government that lets them protest.

smile
Well said.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 19/01/05 01:56 PM

Shoot them, that's the American way isn't it?

I'm sure some communist countries wouldn't put up with this kinda crap. China springs to mind as an example. Surprised that tank didn't crush the dude standing in front of it at Tiananmen Square. Maybe we should adopt similar tactics. Or just throw them in Jail in Guantanamo bay without Trial or something. That'll stop them from protesting, they are most likely all Terrorists anyway for not agreeing with Big W.

It'll be all over at the end of the week, Bush will still be president, several of these idiots will most likely end up in Jail and life will go on for most of us. If Kerry was elected, we'd be seeing the same crap from the same protestors most likely, so there is no winning against these idiots.
Posted by: InfX708

Re: inaguaration protestors - 20/01/05 06:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Weasel:
Exactly!!! Brilliant!!!

The first amendment should be postponed when the United States go to war!

It's the least we can do for the troops fighting for our freedoms!!
Not a new idea. Actually, it was allowed to be made law during WWI, under Wilson, a Democrat.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 20/01/05 06:46 PM

Let em protest until their heads fall off.....At the end of the day, Bush is still President. [ThumbsUp]
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 20/01/05 08:39 PM

What a flop the gang of protesters were. a whole 500-1000 of them. Doesn't seem there is that much outrage for Bush among most americans, just a radical few.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 20/01/05 08:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RiNkY:
Shoot them, that's the American way isn't it?

I'm sure some communist countries wouldn't put up with this kinda crap. China springs to mind as an example. Surprised that tank didn't crush the dude standing in front of it at Tiananmen Square. Maybe we should adopt similar tactics. Or just throw them in Jail in Guantanamo bay without Trial or something. That'll stop them from protesting, they are most likely all Terrorists anyway for not agreeing with Big W.
Wow. eek

Just....wow. [Uh Oh !]
Posted by: Excelagator

Re: inaguaration protestors - 20/01/05 09:59 PM


HAIL RINKY!!! HAIL RINKY!!! [LOL]
Posted by: Mobycat

Re: inaguaration protestors - 21/01/05 02:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Eric P.:
What a flop the gang of protesters were. a whole 500-1000 of them. Doesn't seem there is that much outrage for Bush among most americans, just a radical few.
I question that figure. When I got out of the Metro at McPherson square, I saw at least 50 of them - and this was three blocks away from the parade, during the parade.

The Quakers had an event at a church across the street from where I was (one of the umpteen inaugural balls). It was just boots on the stairs of the church, each with a name tag and candle. Inside they had ALL the pews covered with shoes, and another ton of shoes up at the altar and pulpit. They were reading names of both U.S. servicemen killed as well as Iraqi citizens killed. On the pulpit itself lay a pair of little girl's patent leather shoes. It was quite moving, actually.
Posted by: MBFlyerfan

Re: inaguaration protestors - 21/01/05 04:22 AM

I watched the ANSWER protest on CSPAN. There seemed to be maybe 100 or so there. What a bunch of morons. They were talking about Cuba as if Castro was a good man and that Cuba was a paradise destroyed by US terrorism. Pretty funny stuff if it werent so misguided. It was funny, at one point a woman is screeching some unintelligable babble, then she stops as the President goes by and starts this chant that maybe 5 people joined in with.

These people are so full of hate for this country.
Posted by: Lincoln

Re: inaguaration protestors - 21/01/05 05:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MBFlyerfan:
I watched the ANSWER protest on CSPAN. There seemed to be maybe 100 or so there. What a bunch of morons. They were talking about Cuba as if Castro was a good man and that Cuba was a paradise destroyed by US terrorism. Pretty funny stuff if it werent so misguided. It was funny, at one point a woman is screeching some unintelligable babble, then she stops as the President goes by and starts this chant that maybe 5 people joined in with.

These people are so full of hate for this country.
I wish a bus full of answer idiots would get in an accident...or something.
Posted by: electrobuzz

Re: inaguaration protestors - 21/01/05 06:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln:
I suppose I may have been a little harsh with my words, let me explain:

So many of the people that march in these parades have absolutly no idea what they are marching for, or against. They march just because it is fashionable to protest and go against the government if you are a college student or younger.
So many young people don't remember Nixon, VietNam, the draft...It's fashionable to say, "I support our president." Just wait 'til the new war (next up: Iran! -- we can't do it without a draft).

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS! Impeach Bush.

Inaugural word count:
freedom - 27 times, liberty - 15 times, peace -1 time. "We'll bring freedom to the darkest corners of the earth." No doubt Hakim in Myranmar is just dying for that Starbucks next to his home...

We will also not be bringing improved education, health care or non war-related employment to America.
Posted by: jerseydevi1

Re: inaguaration protestors - 21/01/05 06:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by electrobuzz:
Quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln:
[b]I suppose I may have been a little harsh with my words, let me explain:

So many of the people that march in these parades have absolutly no idea what they are marching for, or against. They march just because it is fashionable to protest and go against the government if you are a college student or younger.
So many young people don't remember Nixon, VietNam, the draft...It's fashionable to say, "I support our president." Just wait 'til the new war (next up: Iran! -- we can't do it without a draft).

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS! Impeach Bush.

Inaugural word count:
freedom - 27 times, liberty - 15 times, peace -1 time. "We'll bring freedom to the darkest corners of the earth." No doubt Hakim in Myranmar is just dying for that Starbucks next to his home...

We will also not be bringing improved education, health care or non war-related employment to America.[/b]
speaking of wacko protesters. Hiya electrobuzz!
Posted by: InfX708

Re: inaguaration protestors - 21/01/05 07:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by electrobuzz:
Just wait 'til the new war (next up: Iran! -- we can't do it without a draft).
I don't know why people think Iran is the next target - especially for a ground invasion. Iran is already under pressure - we occupy countries on both sides of it. Most Iraqis still hate the Iranians. The Peshmerga is increasingly becoming a viable military force (that's the Kurdish army, in case you don't know - a big time threat to Iraq, Iran, and Turkey). I think that Syria would be a much more inviting target. They have been letting terrorists into Iraq or giving them sanctuary. They are really beginning to piss off the current Iraqi government. They are Ba'athists. The WMD trail points to Syria. On the opther hand, I've seen Syrian TV - the chicks are a hell of a lot hotter than the Iraqi ones. They aren't as conservative over there. Must be a west coast thing - damn liberals! [Finger]
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 21/01/05 07:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by InfX708:
I don't know why people think Iran is the next target - especially for a ground invasion.
Why? Click this.

That's why.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 21/01/05 07:38 AM

I would like to personally thank the protestors for allowing me to set the color on my TV using their blue, red, pink, orange and what ever colored hair.

What a bunch of idiots!
Posted by: electrobuzz

Re: inaguaration protestors - 21/01/05 07:39 AM

InfX, thanks for a ground-level analysis of what's going on. Good info. Hot Syrian chicks? Isn't that an oxymoron? laugh

NJ -- I'm sorry that reality is wacko for you. Go buy something, watch some wrasslin', eat a dubba qp with cheese. It'll be OK, but whatever you do -- just don't think.
Posted by: jerseydevi1

Re: inaguaration protestors - 21/01/05 07:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by electrobuzz:
InfX, thanks for a ground-level analysis of what's going on. Good info. Hot Syrian chicks? Isn't that an oxymoron? laugh

NJ -- I'm sorry that reality is wacko for you. Go buy something, watch some wrasslin', eat a dubba qp with cheese. It'll be OK, but whatever you do -- just don't think.

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS! Impeach Bush.

Anyone who makes that last statement has a long trip to make before they can call anyone out of touch with reality.

Thanks again to one of our resident wackos!
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 21/01/05 07:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Excelagator:

[b]HAIL RINKY!!! HAIL RINKY!!!
[LOL] [/b]
lol. My post was basically saying 'What a joke the protestors are' I certainly am not a Nazi or Communist.

I have studied Hitler tho, a very interesting character indeed. Very clever man, just a little messed up with his views. Some of his views are alarmingly similar to those KIM Chong-il in North Korea, who we haven't heard much about recently have we?
Posted by: jerseydevi1

Re: inaguaration protestors - 21/01/05 07:50 AM

Also, for your information, I was born in NYC, raised in Northern NJ, and just moved here a year ago last august, so your sterotyping of me as a redneck is way off. Out of curiosity, if the left is supposed to be so liberal and open-minded, why are you people having such a hard time accepting rednecks, and why is it that anyone who voted for Bush is a redneck? For a group that likes to scream about those on the right being afraid of and not accepting gays, why will you not accept rednecks? What is so scary about them? Just a question. And before you start with the name-calling, think about your response, and try to have it make sense.
Posted by: electrobuzz

Re: inaguaration protestors - 21/01/05 08:01 AM

Who the hell said you are a redneck? I just noted the "wrasslin'" from your signature there, chief.
Settle down.

A suggestion of impeaching Bush as a way of supporting our troops is reasonable. You see, no one has force-fed the idea to you yet, so I understand your inabilty to grasp it. Here's the situation: Bush gave up hunting for the mastermind of 9/11, OBL. He lied (or at the very least rushed judgement) to congress, and the world, about WMD's in Iraq. Now, he's promising freedom (read: American government influence) to all "dark" corners of the world. All with the blood of our soldiers, and the sacrifice of our families. With no consequence (perhaps even, a benefit) to him personally.

That's how that little statement is far from a non-sequitor.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 21/01/05 08:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln:
Quote:
Originally posted by MBFlyerfan:
[b]Let them protest. Its my experience that these people are just preaching to thier particular chior. Their methods usually end up turning off those that they are trying to influence, namely those that are on the fence or have views that differ from thier own.

You will see lots of those espousing socialism and communism. You will see them comparing Bush to Hitler and the Nazis. You will see them saying he lied. You will see them saying America is bad. They will be violent , they will be vulgar, they will be irrelevant.
The problem with this is this is the pulse of the democratic party. Kids running around comparing Bush to Hitler, inciting violence ect.

Maybe they will not be a big part of the innaguaration and they won't take away from it, but there is one horrible thing they will do.

They will make the "insurgents" in Iraq and terrorists everywhere think that they have support in America. The media will give them tons of airtime, and it will undoubtly get back to Al Jazeera and Europe and it will be played on high rotation. They may not realize it, but they are feeding the enemy and our troops lives are at stake.

The same bullshit happened during Vietnam. We didn't lose the war over in Vietnam, we lost it over here. If they hate America so much, they can always leave.[/b]
exactly
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 21/01/05 08:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by electrobuzz:
Bush gave up hunting for the mastermind of 9/11, OBL.
How funny, I have never heard this. When did we quit looking for him? Just last year I did a rotation to Afganistan, and yes we were looking for him.
Posted by: jerseydevi1

Re: inaguaration protestors - 21/01/05 08:33 AM

I give up..

Impeaching the recently elected President is a rational statement how?

Go piss up a tree already.
Posted by: MBFlyerfan

Re: inaguaration protestors - 21/01/05 08:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by infinatenexus:
Quote:
Originally posted by electrobuzz:
[b]Bush gave up hunting for the mastermind of 9/11, OBL.
How funny, I have never heard this. When did we quit looking for him? Just last year I did a rotation to Afganistan, and yes we were looking for him.[/b]
Who are you to tell electrobuzz what you did in Afganistan. How dare you tell a liberal that you know better than them!
Posted by: jerseydevi1

Re: inaguaration protestors - 21/01/05 08:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by electrobuzz:
Who the hell said you are a redneck? I just noted the "wrasslin'" from your signature there, chief.
Settle down.
I've actually never watched wrestling before. The quote is from a movie called "they live"

And not for anything , but to pull a page from the leftist handbook, the way you wrote wrestling as wrasslin, suggests a southern accent, which shows your inherent hatred of southerners, or as you probably refer to them "rednecks". and that connotation offends me. Maybe I'll go get a lefty lawyer and sue you for hurting my feelings now.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 21/01/05 08:46 AM

Theres a lot of people here partaking in a lot of ridiculousness. I feel just as strongly one way as the next guy does the other way, but theres nothing he or I can do about it. Everyone spewing exaggerations from both sides doesn't help a thing.

Bush is president: deal. with. it.
Posted by: jerseydevi1

Re: inaguaration protestors - 21/01/05 08:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by electrobuzz:
He lied (or at the very least rushed judgement) to congress, and the world, about WMD's in Iraq.
Genius, do you remember the UN resolutions against Iraq? How about the treaty Hussein agreed to after the first Gulf War, when he invaded another country. Remember how he agreed to UN weapons inspectors? Then he decided he'd jerk around the international community and not let the inspectors do thier jobs. Lets alsdo talk about firing on our planes patrolling the no-fly zone. Do you remember when he was warned about repercussions? What did you think those would be? More sanctions?

Here's another one. Remember when he used poison gas (aka a WMD) against his own people? This is a man who was a sworn enemy of the US, who previously had WMD, and...stay with me now...USED THEM!! This man would have no problem selling these weapons to our enemies.

When he would not open his closets, as he was required to by the UN, that is when we decided that something had to be done.

And not for anything, but to address your charge of lying, would that also mean that Russia, Germany, France, and England also all lied? Because you do realize a fair amount of thier intelligence went into the decision making process as well, right?
Posted by: electrobuzz

Re: inaguaration protestors - 21/01/05 09:41 AM

Wow, jersey, I thought you "gave up" three posts ago...ramble on, rose.

MB, back to your binary view of the universe, I see. Shit, I didn't even have time to address Infinatenexus before you had to blast me for being a liberal. Damn your universe is so fucking clear. Must be nice. Funny, you'd think it'd be "liberal" to bring "freedom" to all the world, and "conservative" to think first. But, I digress.

Infinate, relatively speaking, he's given up. Troops in Iraq: 150-175K. Troops in Afghanistan: about 10K. This Bush quote in 2002, from one of his rare press conferences, also makes me think he doesn't give a shit about OBL: "You know, I just don't spend that much time on him"

Yep, we attacked a 3rd-world country led by 2nd-rate, has-been dictator with NO WMDs, NO part in the 9/11 attacks, NO clear ties to al-Qaida, and who posed NO immediate threat to the USA.
We've spent billions of dollars to catch the NON-threat Saddam while the REAL threat, Osama bin Asshole, still runs free and al-Qaida has a colossal recruiting poster called "Iraq"...great work, Dubba!

Oh, and all that blood on your hands George? Fuhgeddaboutit! It's time to celebrate FREEDOM!
Hook 'em horns!
Posted by: MBFlyerfan

Re: inaguaration protestors - 21/01/05 10:49 AM

Ok, Electrobuzz, thank you for proving my point, your side is always right and my side is always wrong.

(I do realize that is not the case, but sometimes it seems like your side does not)
Posted by: Mobycat

Re: inaguaration protestors - 21/01/05 12:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MBFlyerfan:
Ok, Electrobuzz, thank you for proving my point, your side is always right and my side is always wrong.

(I do realize that is not the case, but sometimes it seems like your side does not)
Ah, you just proved it again - your is always wrong (saying you realize that is not the case...wrong!)

laugh
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 21/01/05 01:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by electrobuzz:

Infinate, relatively speaking, he's given up. Troops in Iraq: 150-175K. Troops in Afghanistan: about 10K. This Bush quote in 2002, from one of his rare press conferences, also makes me think he doesn't give a shit about OBL: "You know, I just don't spend that much time on him"
How many solders do you think it takes to look for him? Honestly, my unit covered more ground than you can imagine in a short peroid of time.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 21/01/05 01:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by electrobuzz:

Yep, we attacked a 3rd-world country led by 2nd-rate, has-been dictator with NO WMDs, NO part in the 9/11 attacks, NO clear ties to al-Qaida, and who posed NO immediate threat to the USA.
We've spent billions of dollars to catch the NON-threat Saddam while the REAL threat, Osama bin Asshole, still runs free and al-Qaida has a colossal recruiting poster called "Iraq"...great work, Dubba!
Points of view like yours mystify me... You honestly think Saddam was no threat? Seriously, do you know nothing of the man, or his sons? Not even the UN could not account for all of Saddams WMD’s. We have satellite imagery that shows where they went, but I guess you left that out of the information you used to form your opinion?

Oh, and if you think Osama is still a threat, you have been missing out on about three years worth of news. He is nothing, his organization is crippled, never to rise again... unless we stop pounding them at every given opportunity, and go back to the Clinton mentality. [ThumbsDown]

But hey, we could have done nothing about the problem... right? I mean, bringing democracy to the middle east is not our job .. right? Arabs don’t disserve the same rights I fight for, and you enjoy...right?
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 21/01/05 03:45 PM

If Osama is no longer a threat, then what the hell are troops still doing in Afghanistan, since HE was the reason troops were deployed there in October 2001? Wait, don't tell me...they're looking for OTHER terrorists and those ever elusive WMD's.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 21/01/05 05:20 PM

Me personally being a Soldier in the United States Army I thank all of you that have kept the Soldiers in mind EVEN in you don't agree with the GWOT (global war on terrorism.) As for the protesting hippies [Finger] 'em. I know what we are doing there, and even though your argument (digityzed) is "where are the WMD?" Whether they're there or not doesn't matter; the only thing that matters is that President Bush acted rather than sitting back and waiting for it to happen. You are concerned about the Soldiers over there but you are not there; that makes a big difference. Take a survey of Soldiers opinions, you will see that the majority of them are infact glad we are over there as well as the majority of them voted for President Bush's re-election. What you see on the news is only half of what is going on over there, please don't believe it.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 21/01/05 05:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Digityzed:
If Osama is no longer a threat, then what the hell are troops still doing in Afghanistan, since HE was the reason troops were deployed there in October 2001? Wait, don't tell me...they're looking for OTHER terrorists and those ever elusive WMD's.
He is not a threat, compared to what he was. And yes, we are looking for "other" terrorist. Do you think we are only after him?

AS for the WMD's.. you should have paid more attention to the war, and put less effort into bashing it. The location of the WMD's has already been on the nightly news months, and months ago.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 21/01/05 07:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mi_what:
and even though your argument (digityzed) is "where are the WMD?" Whether they're there or not doesn't matter
Even though Iraq's supposed harboring of WMD's was one of the top reasons Bush gave for his decision to invade Iraq? You're right, I guess it doesn't matter, now. :rolleyes:
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 21/01/05 08:21 PM

Quote:
what the hell are troops still doing in Afghanistan,...Wait, don't tell me...they're looking for OTHER terrorists and those ever elusive WMD's
Alright, here we go again.

First of all, You wanted to look like an ignorant asshole and assume that there were NO "other" terrorists, I dismissed that one because how would you know? I mean you live your life without fear of being shot at and not humping around 50 lbs of gear in the desert. Then you say that the WMD aren't there, but after all you are the Military Intelligence Analyst and you know exactly what is and isn't in Afghanistan right? [Finger] you, all you have is CNN and FOX.

But what really gets me is that AFTER I replied you changed your opinion to what was Bush's perogative and what were his reasons; because after all you are his "advisor" and you knew what he was thinking. I have a challenge for you since you want to put your input on something that you know nothing about; read a book, a biography from the CENTCOM Commander, "American Soldier" by General Tommy Franks. You will see the whole reason behind the GWOT and why Bush made the decision he did.

But then again, you are "for" the Soldiers but, "against" the war. Shut up, that is the most retarded thing I have ever heard put together by an individual.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 21/01/05 08:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mi_what:
First of all, You wanted to look like an ignorant asshole and assume that there were NO "other" terrorists, I dismissed that one because how would you know? I mean you live your life without fear of being shot at and not humping around 50 lbs of gear in the desert.
No need for name calling, chief. And, I gather you signed up for the military willingly? I commend you, don't get me wrong, so why are you pissing and moaning about having to "hump around 50 pounds of gear in the desert"?

Quote:
Originally posted by mi_what:
Then you say that the WMD aren't there, but after all you are the Military Intelligence Analyst and you know exactly what is and isn't in Afghanistan right? [Finger] you, all you have is CNN and FOX.
Actually, it's not only me who says the WMDs aren't there, Bush said it himself. Remember that cute little video of him they played at the RNC, searching the oval office? "Nope, not there. Hmmm, they're not there either." He's quite a joker, ain't he?

Quote:
Originally posted by mi_what:
But what really gets me is that AFTER I replied you changed your opinion to what was Bush's perogative and what were his reasons; because after all you are his "advisor" and you knew what he was thinking. I have a challenge for you since you want to put your input on something that you know nothing about; read a book, a biography from the CENTCOM Commander, "American Soldier" by General Tommy Franks. You will see the whole reason behind the GWOT and why Bush made the decision he did.
Fair enough. I'll read your book, if you read a book suggestion I have for you. "The Price of Loyalty" by Paul O'Neill, the first Secretary of the Treasury under Bush II. In the first few chapters, he reveals that Saddam was a target of the administration practically from the first week. Why? "That man wanted to kill my daddy."

Quote:
Originally posted by mi_what:
But then again, you are "for" the Soldiers but, "against" the war. Shut up, that is the most retarded thing I have ever heard put together by an individual.
Correction. I support the soldiers who can accept some gratitude for doing their jobs, not the ones who have a chip on their shoulder thinking they deserve something special. My father, who's a retired Army Reservist of 33 years, feels the same way about the troops and the war as I do. I guess he's retarded then too, huh? [Finger]
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 21/01/05 09:45 PM

You are right, I did voluntarily subject myself to the Army which was one of the greatest things that I have done; it gave me morals, values, education, and a beautiful family. I did NOT bitch about rucking with a 50lb ruck in 110 degree weather, do not put words in my mouth (you will regret it) what I said was that YOU have no idea what is going on over there, think about it, you sit here smugly talking about the war but you are not in it. You ask why the Soldiers are still in Afghanistan and blame it on Bush, so based upon your theory President Roosevelt is to blame for our military presence in Germany? or that President Truman and President Eisenhower are to blame for our military presence in South Korea? Our troops will not be returning home in the near future, both Afghanistan and Iraq will eventually have permanant military bases in each of the countries. To add to your dismay, the soldiers that come on orders for these bases will face hostile forces for years to come (even though fighting has ended) much like the situation in Kosovo. Think about that before you turn to point the finger at the president. You may argue that he went to that country first because of a bias brought on by his fathers involvement but, if you had a public "jihad" announced on you, thousands of your people killed in a hienous attack, and a dictator claiming responsibility for it all (from the country of Afghanistan) wouldn't you seek revenge? Then you began to speculate that the weapons of mass destruction are indeed not there; all I said was that it doesn't matter if they were there or not, what mattered was that President Bush has a set of balls and went into a country looking for them, not that he waited to see if Suddam was bluffing and get caught by surprise.

Oh and I could care less about your gratuity, I do what I do because I want to not because I demand respect (give that shit to the police and fireman.) Oh and congratulations to your father, that is a great feat to retire from the service, that is not you though so do not hide behind his record. If he supports the Soldiers but not the war then he too is in fact has problems.
Posted by: Lincoln

Re: inaguaration protestors - 21/01/05 09:56 PM

All of you liberals need to stop running the party line on WMD's. These are the facts:

- WMD's did exist in Iraq

- Saddam has used WMD's in the past

- Saddam played games with inspectors by using mobile weapons labs, and hiding weapons all over the country (I was in the Navy and did lots of intel analysis on this very subject).

- Saddam shot at our pilots enforcing the now fly zones on a daily basis with the intent to kill them

- Saddam sponsored terrorism and terrorist activities

- Saddam would not prove to us that he did not have WMD's

- France, Germany, England, John Kerry all said that Iraq had WMD's. They had the same intel that President Bush had.

- Saddam murdered and slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings, many because of their religion

Bush did the right thing based on all of the history, present situations, and available intel from different sources. Does Iraq have WMD's in Iraq now, no. Is it possible that they moved them all, definatly.

After September 11th, we could not afford to wait. We must act, not react.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 21/01/05 10:31 PM

I totally agree Lincoln. [ThumbsUp]
Posted by: InfX708

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/01/05 01:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Digityzed:
Quote:
Originally posted by InfX708:
[b]I don't know why people think Iran is the next target - especially for a ground invasion.
Why? Click this.

That's why.[/b]
Iran is a potential trouble spot. So is Cuba, Northern Ireland, Columbia, Most of Africa, North Korea, Israel, Pakistan, India... The whole damn world is a potential trouble spot. There are something like 200 wars going on at any given time. Iran could be eliminated as a threat in much the same way Israel set back Iraq's nuclear program.
Posted by: InfX708

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/01/05 01:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by infinatenexus:
Quote:
Originally posted by electrobuzz:
[b]Bush gave up hunting for the mastermind of 9/11, OBL.
How funny, I have never heard this. When did we quit looking for him? Just last year I did a rotation to Afganistan, and yes we were looking for him.[/b]
Ditto in Iraq - maybe not the "master-mind", butwe certainly were looking for several targets wanted in connection with it, not to mention that red-headed asshole buddy of Saddam's.
Posted by: InfX708

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/01/05 02:22 PM

I don't think it is possible for someone who has never been there to grasp the reality of the GWOT. Since the Iraq invasion, there have been zero act of terrorism on the U.S. Iraq's borders were/are porous - not gonna get in an arguement over that. Everyone that has had a beef with the US has gathered there enmass. Now, which would you prefer - carbombs in Baghdad or carbombs in New York? RPGs fired at police in Mosul or bombs at police stations in LA? Is Iraq a shitty place right now? You better believe it. Is it better than fighting terrorist at home? I think most Americans would believe so. That's the reason we are over there, but that be made a policy. Think about how bad that would look - we don't want to fight in our back yard, so we are gonna do it in yours. The worst thing about the GWOT is that most Americans, and most of the world is too worried about how the war is won. They would rather see dead soldiers than dead Iraqis. I have said it from the beginning. If we were able to do this thing like we did WWII, it'd be almost finished. We wouldn't have any Iraqi-based insurgency - only outside non-state actors. Unfortunately, you people can't stomach a real war - you all think it should be a police style operation. You can't have a sterile war. If you live on a battlefield, life is gonna suck. That's the nature of modern warfare. We don't fight out in fields anymore. You can't bring your lunch and the family to sit and watch the battle take place. If our troops were given the ROE that said do what ever you have to do to come home alive, I can guarantee you things would be much better. Well, maybe not for the Iraqis, but they would for us. It comes down to whose side are you on? You can't say that you are on the side of the US and Iraqi civilians. Most of the civilians are either apathetic or supporting the insurgency in some way. Time for a lesson. There are three components to an insurgency: the fighters, the auxillary, and the sympathizers. The fighters are the ones carrying out attacks. The auxillary helps them by either hiding them or transporting weapons, providing supplies, etc. The sympathizers are those that just turn a blind eye to it all. Of those three, the only ones we can currently attack are the fighters, which are hard to nail down as they don't wear a uniform. Unless we capture one and he gives us names and addresses, we can't get them. All three are guilty of carrying out the insurgency. We had an entire neighborhood of auxillary and sympathizers across the street from our compound in Mosul. The insurgency knew everytime a patrol left, who was on it, and where they were going. We didn't have many attacks, but then, it was a much quieter time back then.
As far as not finding WMD, it's not suprising. Iraq is a really big sandbox. We are still finding MiGs that were buried prior to the war. Do you really think Saddam sat around since '91 and didn't create some way of hiding those things? I doubt we will ever find them, but I don't doubt that they exist. The Sphinx was accidentally hidden in the desert for thousands of years. No one doubts that it exists. Think how easy it would be to hide a few bombs on purpose.
Posted by: electrobuzz

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/01/05 02:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by InfX708:
Quote:
Originally posted by infinatenexus:
[b]
Quote:
Originally posted by electrobuzz:
[b]Bush gave up hunting for the mastermind of 9/11, OBL.
How funny, I have never heard this. When did we quit looking for him? Just last year I did a rotation to Afganistan, and yes we were looking for him.[/b]
Ditto in Iraq - maybe not the "master-mind", butwe certainly were looking for several targets wanted in connection with it, not to mention that red-headed asshole buddy of Saddam's.[/b]
Who is that? Conan O'Brien?
Posted by: electrobuzz

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/01/05 02:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by InfX708:
I don't think it is possible for someone who has never been there to grasp the reality of the GWOT. Since the Iraq invasion, there have been zero act of terrorism on the U.S. Iraq's borders were/are porous - not gonna get in an arguement over that. Everyone that has had a beef with the US has gathered there enmass. Now, which would you prefer - carbombs in Baghdad or carbombs in New York? RPGs fired at police in Mosul or bombs at police stations in LA? Is Iraq a shitty place right now? You better believe it. Is it better than fighting terrorist at home? I think most Americans would believe so. That's the reason we are over there, but that be made a policy. Think about how bad that would look - we don't want to fight in our back yard, so we are gonna do it in yours. The worst thing about the GWOT is that most Americans, and most of the world is too worried about how the war is won. They would rather see dead soldiers than dead Iraqis. I have said it from the beginning. If we were able to do this thing like we did WWII, it'd be almost finished. We wouldn't have any Iraqi-based insurgency - only outside non-state actors. Unfortunately, you people can't stomach a real war - you all think it should be a police style operation. You can't have a sterile war. If you live on a battlefield, life is gonna suck. That's the nature of modern warfare. We don't fight out in fields anymore. You can't bring your lunch and the family to sit and watch the battle take place. If our troops were given the ROE that said do what ever you have to do to come home alive, I can guarantee you things would be much better. Well, maybe not for the Iraqis, but they would for us. It comes down to whose side are you on? You can't say that you are on the side of the US and Iraqi civilians. Most of the civilians are either apathetic or supporting the insurgency in some way. Time for a lesson. There are three components to an insurgency: the fighters, the auxillary, and the sympathizers. The fighters are the ones carrying out attacks. The auxillary helps them by either hiding them or transporting weapons, providing supplies, etc. The sympathizers are those that just turn a blind eye to it all. Of those three, the only ones we can currently attack are the fighters, which are hard to nail down as they don't wear a uniform. Unless we capture one and he gives us names and addresses, we can't get them. All three are guilty of carrying out the insurgency. We had an entire neighborhood of auxillary and sympathizers across the street from our compound in Mosul. The insurgency knew everytime a patrol left, who was on it, and where they were going. We didn't have many attacks, but then, it was a much quieter time back then.
As far as not finding WMD, it's not suprising. Iraq is a really big sandbox. We are still finding MiGs that were buried prior to the war. Do you really think Saddam sat around since '91 and didn't create some way of hiding those things? I doubt we will ever find them, but I don't doubt that they exist. The Sphinx was accidentally hidden in the desert for thousands of years. No one doubts that it exists. Think how easy it would be to hide a few bombs on purpose.
Inf -- Sorry, chief, but that's a weak, and absolutely unproveable connection. What if we didn't attack a country that had no Al-Qaeda ties? There could just as easily be "no car bombs in Metropolis, USA". A poor justifcation for a shitload of blood , a lot of money, and proof that the USA's current administration sees the sword as mightier than the pen. By the way it's OK to start to accept that WMD's don't exist, and haven't since 1995. It's been said by hundreds of CIA operatives, international inspectors...and even President Cheney, errr, Chimpy has said as much.

EDITED TO ADD: PS -- you are in the middle of a civil war. The US's actions actually unified Sunnis and Shiites for some time, however that has broken down. Hey, how about that -- Chimpy really is a unifier. "Insurgency" is a new buzz word for "Iraqi civil war".
Ain't it great to be in the middle of it for no fucking reason whatsoever?
Posted by: electrobuzz

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/01/05 02:45 PM

Oh yeah, let's kick the shit out of Venezuela, too, now.

http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/news/newsbyid.asp?id=20281

Hmmm...why could that be? Beyond the reasons Dr. Rice states? Anyone? Anyone?
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/01/05 02:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln:
All of you liberals need to stop running the party line on WMD's. These are the facts:

-blah blah blah, a bunch of right wing bullshit, blah blah blah blah...
Yeah, Saddam had weapons...that the US GAVE HIM. Last time he had them was in the mid 80's-early 90's, until he used them on the Kurds.

That ass clown Reagan was handing Saddam WMD's left and right illegally behind Congress's back. Seriously, this whole mess lays at the feet of that wrinkled old turd. Alzheimer's was too nice of a way for that devil to go.

As was said earlier...Saddam couldn't even hide HIMSELF...how could he mastermind the hiding of tons and tons of WMD's? Come on...you righties aren't REALLY this stupid are you?

oh wait...you DID re-elect Bush. You just might BE that stupid.
Posted by: electrobuzz

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/01/05 02:48 PM

Yes, who is that dapper young sadist cozying up with the maniacal Saddam Hussein?

Posted by: Lincoln

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/01/05 02:59 PM

Is that Ted Kennedy in the background?
Posted by: electrobuzz

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/01/05 03:03 PM

Maybe. He probably took a wrong turn just past the Chappaquidick.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/01/05 03:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by :
Yes, who is that dapper young sadist cozying up with the maniacal Saddam Hussein?

Hey electrobuzz, why don't you stop blaming Bush, and start blaming terrorist... thats a new one huh.. or should we be more like Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter.. and do nothing about the whole situation

Question... did you piss and moan when Clinton went into Bosnia?
Posted by: Lincoln

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/01/05 04:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by infinatenexus:
Question... did you piss and moan when Clinton went into Bosnia?
Remember...



Fricken Hypochrites!
Posted by: Lincoln

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/01/05 04:08 PM

Here is some more.











Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/01/05 04:40 PM

Ladies and Gentlemen, the President of the United States:

Bush defines sovereignty in his own special way

Record of failure
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/01/05 05:01 PM

I would like to take a minute to address the political situation about us "righties" and how we re-elected Bush.

For those of you that don't know, there is a $22 millon Mosque currently under construction in Boston, Massachussetts.

Here is the design

Now at first glance it looks to be a charitable organization where Muslims "felt the need for an organization or a place to gather themselves, preserve their Islamic identity and help them observe their obligations as Muslims." as quoted by the ISB themselves.

With a more detailed insight it is an organization that has ties to radicalism and the members that formed the ISB have ties to extremism.

(I.E. Dr. Yusef al-Qaradawi [one of the four directors of the ISB] is a respected Muslim scholar, but the Egyptian Wahabbi cleric has urged Iraqi Muslims to kill American Soldiers, and has praised Palestinian suicide bombers.)

and believe me, there are plenty more rap sheets where this one cam from.

But, the point to my rambling here is to uncover the person who granted permission to a radical society to build the largest Mosque in the northeastern United States:

I dare you to click and find out

But what does this have to do with anything?

If you read the first line of his letter:
"I am proud to join Yousef Abou-Allaban, the Staff and Guests of the Islamic Society of Boston, and Muslims across Massachusetts in celebrating the groundbreaking of this new Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center."

So Senator Kerry is proud to be among a crowd of Extremists?

Me personally I am glad we re-elected Bush, at least with him we know that the war won't come to the home-front (well it hasn't at least since HE waged the war on terrorism)

[ThumbsUp] you got my vote Bush. Keep up the good work.
Posted by: electrobuzz

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/01/05 05:03 PM

Like I said, the sword is mightier than the pen (or #3 pencil, as it were) in this administration.

Fuck yes; there are reasons to go to war. I'd love to track down the national connections and affiliations of the 18 terrorists originally from Saudi Arabia that slaughtered thousands of our countrymen. Now that's a place to impose the LAW, open up a 50 cal and scramble the 16’s. Wherever that may be.

I'd love to see us focus on finding Osama Been Asshole. Maybe 175000 of the best fighting troops in the world could do the job better than 10000 (and certainly better than "letting the Afghanis handle it"). Instead, our deployments are too heavy in a second-rate sandbox. What the hell are we doing now -- imposing elections??? Hm, in 2001 we had 67% of the country under a "no fly zone". And we attacked to…impose elections? Is it really better now? We had Saddam in a tight little chastity belt. He was our bitch. Now, well, we will see what uncontrolled scum surfaces. And we will also sadly see a lot more American blood flow. Imposed from DC by a leader who has never been to war. However, I bet as a Yale cheerleader, he had a nasty scuffle with a Harvard boy at least once.

And, yes war sucks. It's everywhere. We cannot be the world's police. But based on that bizarre inaugural speech, we're gonna light it up all over. The leader of my country has made an urgent pledge spread freedom to "the darkest corners of our world". What the hell? Freedom is not Country Crock. It is not a product; it is an ideal, an attainable one that CANNOT BE IMPOSED.

If we had direction at a national level that was even marginally capable of creating a world consensus we might be able to solve some of these problems. Solve them without numerous dead from home and across the world and without many of our youth coming back looking like Civil War vets, padding forth missing an appendage or two.

Clinton was marginal at best. Bosnia helped cover up his fellatio follies. But, how about that, a concerted effort to help people that weren’t oil-rich? Wow. Oh, yeah, they are white over there, tho.

Let’s consider some other major human rights violators: Indonesia, Haiti, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Tunisia, China and North Korea. There’s lots of internal oppression, torture and slaughter in all those countries. Saddle up ladies and gents, there's a lot of freedom to impose. And be sure to get ready for a draft that won't be televised on ESPN.
Posted by: Mobycat

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/01/05 05:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mi_what:

But, the point to my rambling here is to uncover the person who granted permission to a radical society to build the largest Mosque in the northeastern United States:

I dare you to click and find out
Oh, he "granted" permission?

Give me a break. Kerry is federal, not state. Why not talk to Romney? He's the governor.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/01/05 05:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mi_what:
Me personally I am glad we re-elected Bush, at least with him we know that the war won't come to the home-front
You know for a fact? They didn't even know about 9/11, and what information they did have, they ignored. I don't know how you can be so sure. And please don't pull out the "I've been out there, so I know, so fuck you" card.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/01/05 05:55 PM

Has there been an attack on home soil since he waged the war? only common sense would tell you that since we've had this war on terrorism (which Bush executed) America has been free of attack. I mean when the USS Cole was Bombed and 17 Sailors died, did president Clinton go after the attackers (which were linked to al-Qaida)? No, he didn't. Then just a little under a year after that the World Trade Centers fell, here is a timeline:

Oct 12, 2000---Sep 11, 2001---Oct 7,2001
USS COLE-----WTC Attacks-----Bush attacks
_______|____________|_________|

After that NOTHING, so based on analysis of past events and information I can be safe in my assesment that the war will not come to the home-front. (that and it is also 2005 and since 2001 there haven't been any attacks kinda give me ground to stand on)
Posted by: electrobuzz

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/01/05 06:17 PM

Great links, Digit. Wow. That's who's running our country.

Mi -- you've got some spurrious logic flowing, bro. Hey, we haven't had a massive crippling Internet virus since W started the war, we haven't have extensive fluctuations in the Van Allen belt since W started the war. Moorlocks haven't surfaced and taken over the world since W started the war.

The Cole incident sucked. I had a friend that left that ship a month earlier. While it was a shitty attack on the US -- it wasn't an "attack on US soil". In fact, there wasn't an attack on the 50 states from the WTC in 93 to the WTC in 2001. All *without* pouring billions outside of our country leading to the slaugter of thousands of our own and others. How about that?

So W's great at the helm? As Condi so hesitantly stated, Bush did little in regards to this intelligence memo right up to 9/11: "I believe the title was 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.'" I have heard that W had plenty of vacation leading up to 9/11 tho.
And hey, Crawford's still a-ok, at least. Thanks W!
Posted by: Mobycat

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/01/05 06:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mi_what:
Has there been an attack on home soil since he waged the war? only common sense would tell you that since we've had this war on terrorism (which Bush executed) America has been free of attack. I mean when the USS Cole was Bombed and 17 Sailors died, did president Clinton go after the attackers (which were linked to al-Qaida)? No, he didn't. Then just a little under a year after that the World Trade Centers fell, here is a timeline:

Oct 12, 2000---Sep 11, 2001---Oct 7,2001
USS COLE-----WTC Attacks-----Bush attacks
_______|____________|_________|

After that NOTHING, so based on analysis of past events and information I can be safe in my assesment that the war will not come to the home-front. (that and it is also 2005 and since 2001 there haven't been any attacks kinda give me ground to stand on)
I find it amusing how people think that since there hasn't been an attack inside the U.S., Bush has been successful. What makes you think they've planned anything in that time? What happens when it DOES happen again? Does the excuse then become, "Well, it was X number of years of prevented attacks...something was bound to get through, 'cause the government isn't going to be able to get *everything*."?
Posted by: Lincoln

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/01/05 06:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Digityzed:
Ladies and Gentlemen, the President of the United States:

Bush defines sovereignty in his own special way

Record of failure
I guess they were the only ones talking about 9/11. It really wasn't a big enough deal for other people to talk about it, either is terrorism.

[Freak] [Freak] [Freak]

What the hell do you people expect??? If you leftist "people" want to belive that 9/11 and terrorism are not real threats and that the administration is trying to scare people, then you still haven't learned.

Maybe after the next attack, after thousands more of your brothers and sisters die, then you will take it seriously.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/01/05 07:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln:
Maybe after the next attack, after thousands more of your brothers and sisters die, then you will take it seriously.
Maybe when the next attack happens, you fuckers on the right will realize that a gay ass color coded warning system is not ACTUALLY protecting us...just getting us riled up and scared.

Tom Ridge can kiss my white ass.
Posted by: Lincoln

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/01/05 07:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by electrobuzz:
The Cole incident sucked. I had a friend that left that ship a month earlier. While it was a shitty attack on the US -- it wasn't an "attack on US soil".
How the fuck can you sit there and say, "While it was a shitty attack on the US -- it wasn't an attack on US soil." Who gives a fuck where they were. It was an attack on a US Naval Vessel and it killed American service people. That is an attack on America, no matter how the fuck you look at it. An attack on our military is an act of war.

Clinton had the chance to avenge the Cole and her lost sailors, and he didn't. I was in the Navy during that period and was stationed in Norfolk (the Coles homeport). We couldn't believe that we didn't do more about that tragedy.
Posted by: electrobuzz

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/01/05 07:06 PM

Linc, come on bro. A person can take the threat of terror seriously and not agree with the tack that this administration has taken, right? There's not one right answer. There are many wrong answers, and the current administration seems to have found many of them -- and wear them like they drape themselves in my flag and in colorful words like "patriotism".

And we are losing as a country for it. Losing our lives, losing families, losing money and losing any real leadership in the world.
Posted by: Lincoln

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/01/05 07:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by WilMac1023:
Quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln:
[b]Maybe after the next attack, after thousands more of your brothers and sisters die, then you will take it seriously.
Maybe when the next attack happens, you fuckers on the right will realize that a gay ass color coded warning system is not ACTUALLY protecting us...just getting us riled up and scared.

Tom Ridge can kiss my white ass.[/b]
Fuck the warning system, the thing that is protecting us is that we are on the offensive. We are taking the fight to them, and keeping it out of our back yard.

Would you rather have us scrambling to play defense on our land?
Posted by: electrobuzz

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/01/05 07:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln:
Quote:
Originally posted by electrobuzz:
[b]The Cole incident sucked. I had a friend that left that ship a month earlier. While it was a shitty attack on the US -- it wasn't an "attack on US soil".
How the fuck can you sit there and say, "While it was a shitty attack on the US -- it wasn't an attack on US soil." Who gives a fuck where they were. It was an attack on a US Naval Vessel and it killed American service people. That is an attack on America, no matter how the fuck you look at it. An attack on our military is an act of war.

Clinton had the chance to avenge the Cole and her lost sailors, and he didn't. I was in the Navy during that period and was stationed in Norfolk (the Coles homeport). We couldn't believe that we didn't do more about that tragedy.[/b]
Amen to that. [ThumbsUp] It's like we broke out a giant broom and just hoped everyone would forget.

My statement was a direct response to MI's commentary about "attacks at home" and specific infiltration of terrorists within our borders.
Shit, what did Reagan do about the two attacks, killing 300, in Beirut 1981? Reagan's reaction was to withdraw American forces, an act that Osama bin Laden later pointed to as an example of American cowardice. That sucked too.
Posted by: Lincoln

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/01/05 07:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by electrobuzz:
Linc, come on bro. A person can take the threat of terror seriously and not agree with the tack that this administration has taken, right? There's not one right answer. There are many wrong answers, and the current administration seems to have found many of them -- and wear them like they drape themselves in my flag and in colorful words like "patriotism".

And we are losing as a country for it. Losing our lives, losing families, losing money and losing any real leadership in the world.
I agree with some of what you are saying. A person can take the threat of terrorism seriously, and not agree with the administration. That is your right, and I love this country because of that.

The problem is that many on the left think that this is a fucken game. They drink their kool aid and don't really believe that there is a threat. Look at the links that Digityzed posted. They think that Bush has made this war up (Michael Moore), and concocted 9/11 for his own gain. That is outright ridiculous, idiotic, and irresponsible.

There is not any one right answer. This is not an easy situation at all. Bush has done a lot right, and he has definatly made some mistakes.

One thing I would like to see is the left actually taking some responsibility and holding some of their own accountable also. Their ridiculous hatred of Bush makes the lefts political leadership look like monkeys. They blame Bush for stuff, and give their own a pass when they do the exact same thing that Bush does.

The most important thing to me is the safety of the citizens of the United States of America. I swore to protect that in my service years, and I still hold true to that oath. Bush is the one person that has had the balls to hold those that want to kill us, and ruin our way of life accountable for their actions.
Posted by: Lincoln

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/01/05 07:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by electrobuzz:
Shit, what did Reagan do about the two attacks, killing 300, in Beirut 1981? Reagan's reaction was to withdraw American forces, an act that Osama bin Laden later pointed to as an example of American cowardice. That sucked too.
I agree with you again. That did suck and it was a horrible decision!

The difference is that we didn't view terrorism as a huge threat back then.

You would think that after the first attack on the World Trade Center (during Clintons Presidency), the bombings of our embassies (during Clintons Presidency), the Black Hawk incident (during Clintons Presidency), The USS Cole incident (during Clintons Presidency)......you can see where I am going with this. You would think that after all of those attacks, that he would do something about all of this.
Posted by: electrobuzz

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/01/05 07:30 PM

I'd say the current wave of terror really grew under Reagan's watch:

http://www.simplytaty.com/broadenpages/terrorism.htm#70

Again, a leader that can only see black and white. Yes, Communism was a bigger threat then...at least as a kid, it felt like it. But look at all these incidents. Reagan did no more than shake a fist.

Look at the variety of groups. So, you are saying since we attacked Iraq (a country that did not attack us), all the other terror groups will be scared away from us? You know, it seems like if we continue to forcefully impose our will on Iraq, the opposite will be true.

Or is this where the grand plan of bringing freedom to the "dark corners of the world" comes in?

At some point, civilization grows from communication -- not killing. But hey, we've had a War on Something (some valid, some not) since the 30's. Perhaps we wouldn't know what to do if we weren't at war?

Hey, here's one! A War on Ignorance. Nah, never happen under this helm. No benefit there.
Posted by: Lincoln

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/01/05 07:31 PM

We are not so much as imposing our will on Iraq as giving the people (that indeed do want to be free, and they have that God given right) a chance to be free.
Posted by: electrobuzz

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/01/05 07:56 PM

Linc, which God(s) gave that right to be free? Fundamentalist (and some moderate) Muslims seem to like to be led -- by other Muslims. So saying our brand of freedom is "God given" is supporting the "crusade" (w's word) we are on. Of course, we could talk about the religious wars that have flared in the region for thousands of years...

Hey, check out that "terror history" link. Notice the lack of terrorist activity from late 88 to early 93? Remember what HW Bush did after recapturing Kuwait, with all the support of NATO behind him? He recognized Iraq as (an albeit fucked up) sovereign nation. He showed mercy. He used diplomacy. And steadily weakened the power of Hussein.

Once he left, it all went to hell again under Clinton, and his lesser enabled and lesser enlightened progeny.

Hm. What would the world be like if HW got that second term? The world was building, there was peace. A freaking Age of Diplomacy was growing(call it the War on Non-Diplomacy, as you like) -- yep, under a Republican. Boo-ya. But, we'll never know. And in the words of the '92 spoiler: "That's just sad".
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/01/05 08:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln:
Look at the links that Digityzed posted. They think that Bush has made this war up (Michael Moore), and concocted 9/11 for his own gain. That is outright ridiculous, idiotic, and irresponsible.
I'm definitely not as radical as Michael Moore is about Bush's tenure so far, believe me! I don't think that Bush "concocted 9/11 for his own gain," but I do think there's been some exploitation of it, which has made us, as a nation, look bad in the eyes of other nations. Sadly, the world's view of the U.S. as a whole has grown increasingly more sour since 2001, but hopefully the Bush administration does some serious mending of relations over the next four years.
Posted by: InfX708

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/01/05 09:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by electrobuzz:
Inf -- Sorry, chief, but that's a weak, and absolutely unproveable connection. What if we didn't attack a country that had no Al-Qaeda ties? There could just as easily be "no car bombs in Metropolis, USA". A poor justifcation for a shitload of blood , a lot of money, and proof that the USA's current administration sees the sword as mightier than the pen. By the way it's OK to start to accept that WMD's don't exist, and haven't since 1995. It's been said by hundreds of CIA operatives, international inspectors...and even President Cheney, errr, Chimpy has said as much.

EDITED TO ADD: PS -- you are in the middle of a civil war. The US's actions actually unified Sunnis and Shiites for some time, however that has broken down. Hey, how about that -- Chimpy [b]really is
a unifier. "Insurgency" is a new buzz word for "Iraqi civil war".
Ain't it great to be in the middle of it for no fucking reason whatsoever?[/b]
Number one, I'm not a Chief - that title belongs to a Naval NCO. Number two, as far as NOT attacking a country that had No Al Quida ties, we did that after the first World Trade Center bombing, the USS Cole, the Khobar towers, the embassies in Kenya and the Sudan, and the Mogidishu ambush. Look what happened. Total span of time on those incidents was what, 7 years or so? We launched a few Tomahawks, but didn't really do anything decisive. Almost 4 years into GWOT, we haven't had any acts of terrorism against U.S. targets. Now, I grant you that "act of terrorism" will mean things to different people. To the typical civilian, an 82mm mortar slamming into a skylight above your bed, inches from the glass, might be considered an act of terrorism. To me, that's just part of my job. So, you statement begs the question, what is justification for a lot of money and shitload of blood? Perhaps a small raid by a few aircraft on U.S. warships at anchor in the harbor of a U.S. protectorate? Is that worth 700,000 KIA, and over 1 million wounded, not to mention about 5 years of severe hardship at home? There are some people you just can't be diplomatic with. A man who sees Stalin as a hero is one of them.
I'll pass on your belief to my buddies in D Co of the nonexistance of chemical weapons. Perhaps you'd like to check out what they found in Karbola. Granted, it wasn't a lot, but the presence of it says enough.
Iraq isn't a civil war. That's a new one though. Well, I take that back. There's a civil war that's been going on for a really long time. It's between the Kurds and Iraq and Turkey. Same thing is going on in Israel. Civil wars take place between organized forces, not independent cells. When was the last time you heard of the insurgents being the victim of a car bomb? I wouldn't consider mortaring a school an act of war. That is terrorism. If you think Iraq is a civil war, then you probably think that the gang crime in LA is also a civil war. The insurgency is really not much more than normal crime in America, just on a much more intense scale. I said the same thing about Mosul last year. If American criminals had access to RPGs and mortars, and it wasn't unsusal for over 50% of all homes to have a fully automatic AK-47, you'd see the same shit happening here. This is like Chicago in the twenties. You have to walk the streets to understand it. I'm not being arrogant about it - it's the truth. You can't create a truely informed opinion until you have talked to the average Joe - well, I guess it would be Average Mohammad over there. Sure, there are people that hate us - same way most criminals feel about the police. There are lot's that view us as a necessary nuiscance - just like lot's of people here view the police. Finally, there are those that love us. Most of these are the highly educated ones. They are smart enough to recognize that there is a future for Iraq that is a hell of a lot better than it was under Saddam. They know the power of that black gold under the sand. They help us find and kill those that try to stand in the way of that prosperity. That's the thing that kills me. I've had lots of time to talk with Iraqis of various back grounds and education levels - most Iraqis speak some degree of English. Even those that initially weren't sure if they liked us being there understood that if everyone pulled together they could be the richest country in the middle east. In Mosul, money is the most important thing. I explained to them about Alaska and the oil dividends that get paid out. There is hope over there, it just doesn't sell newspapers like car bombs and dead bodies do.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 23/01/05 06:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Digityzed:
Quote:
Originally posted by mi_what:
[b]Me personally I am glad we re-elected Bush, at least with him we know that the war won't come to the home-front
You know for a fact? They didn't even know about 9/11, and what information they did have, they ignored. I don't know how you can be so sure. And please don't pull out the "I've been out there, so I know, so fuck you" card.[/b]
Why not blame Bill Clinton, since that attack was planned under his tenure, under his first term. oh wait that's right, he cut out intelligence agencies in half, no wonder why they failed... my bad.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 23/01/05 06:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by electrobuzz:
I'd say the current wave of terror really grew under Reagan's watch:

http://www.simplytaty.com/broadenpages/terrorism.htm#70

Again, a leader that can only see black and white. Yes, Communism was a bigger threat then...at least as a kid, it felt like it. But look at all these incidents. Reagan did no more than shake a fist.
A. Blame juimmy Carter, he started this mess

B. regan did a whole lot more than shake his fist.

c. Why don't you quit being so pessimistic, and start blaming the Muslim shit bags who we are after?
Posted by: electrobuzz

Re: inaguaration protestors - 23/01/05 08:19 AM

Um, InfinITE. Did you look at the link? Acts of terrorism under Carter -- one. By Puerto Rico! Carter was a peace broker, a diplomat, a military man who served overseas with distinction and one the world could respect. Acts under Reagan -- 18. You tell me what he did about terrorism, besides turn tail and run? Acts under HW Bush - zero. Again, a diplomat, a pilot who was in the big war, a man the world could respect.

Regarding "blame". Have you read anything I've written? Yes let's get the shitbags that attacked us. We're kicking the crap out of the the wrong freaking country. Besides, we already had Iraq under our thumb. Let's track down the origin of the terrorists who flew into the Trade Centers and attack there, shall we?
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 23/01/05 08:29 AM

I would like to explain the concept of an "Intelligence Memo" as it was referred too.

Who would like to take a guess at what the "mi" in my nickname stands for?

I will give you a hint: Military Intelligence.

When an Analyst sits down at his terminal and proceeds to check message traffic for the past 24 hours, and sees a report that says "Bin Laden to attack America" it should click in his head that this is possibly grounds for a "critic" (a report that is written that takes precedence above all others and is sent to the Presidents desk within a matter of 10 minutes)

However, if the original report does not specify a date/time or a specific event what are we to do about that? Would you have liked the President to implement the "terror alerts" then? That is what would have happened none the less. The only difference that would have happened on September 11th 2001 is that the terrorists would have proven more successful by getting past a "prepared" enemy (that is how they would have percieved it)

I will associate it like this:

If somebody told you that you were going to get beat up, would you call the police? Chances are no, you wouldn't, why? because you would not have the answers to the questions they ask (who made the threat? when did they say it would take place?) But, then one day you are walking to work and you get "jumped" by the bloods or the crypts, then you would call the police because even though it is too late for you, you still want to see justice for what happened and you don't want to see people live their lives in fear. What you people don't understand about the Intelligence world is that we are only as good as the information we recieve. We CANNOT fill in the blanks and call the President every time.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 23/01/05 08:35 AM

Oh, and ElectroBuzz,

How can you "kick the crap out of the wrong country" in a GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM? Are you telling me that Iraq is not considered part of our Globe? or that it doesn't harbor terrorists?
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 23/01/05 08:59 AM

I think what electro meant, was that we haven't gone after the countries who played the biggest part in 9/11...namely Saudi Arabia. Since the GWOT started on that day (that is, the U.S. making plans for retaliating), has there been any talk of going into Saudi Arabia? We immediately went to Afghanistan, which is where OBL was supposedly hiding out. Three years later, and we still don't have him.

After it became clear that finding OBL was a little more difficult than perhaps they first thought, the focus was shifted to Iraq. Yes, I agree, that Saddam needed to be removed, but did he have any provable part in the attacks on the U.S.S. Cole or 9/11? Remember, that was one of the major reasons Bush gave the American public for going into Iraq, that Saddam had terrorist ties, which still hasn't been proven. Yet, in the early 80s, we had ties to Saddam, so WTF? :rolleyes:

We haven't gone after Saudi Arabia, which is where 15 of the 19 highjackers on 9/11 were from. This article explains it all, I suppose.

"Judge Richard Casey said the president, not the courts, has the authority to label a foreign nation a terrorist, though he said he understood the ``desire to find a legal remedy for the horrible wrongs committed on Sept. 11, 2001.''"

Huh. I wonder why Saudi Arabia is in the clear?



Who is that you might ask? Go here to find out.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 23/01/05 09:08 AM

It just kinda baffles me that people would much rather question the presidents motives and reasons then just accept that it is A Global War on Terrorism. I will not deny that President Bush has ties of some sort in Saudi Arabia, but this war was waged so that we can help the world remove the threat of terrorists, not just to avenge the deaths of the WTC victims. Therefore we need to go where the terrorists are harbored.

Don't get me wrong, the WTC was a terrible and tragic event and if past presidents would have made more of an effort to focus on the threat of terrorism, MAYBE (me thinking) that event would not have happened, maybe it would of who knows? But now we have a President (competent or not he is still our president) that did something about the threat of terrorism and to my perception has been successful in his efforts to stop terrorism.
Posted by: electrobuzz

Re: inaguaration protestors - 23/01/05 09:10 AM

Um, MI. You fully credited the lack of attacks on our soil since '01 to the Iraq War. We haven't had a macerena-like dance since the Iraq-attack either, so keep on fighting. Do you understand? The correlation you make is weak. My God, I hope you aren't in military intelligence. Really. When I was in the Army, it was a joke -- you know, military intelligence was an oxymoron. I guess for this administration, who wants to craft their own realities, perhaps you are the ideal man for the job. Sorry bro, but it's true. THINK! But, that's exactly what they'd rather we not do. Hey, any towelhead in the dark will do, right?

Um, yes if I were attacked by Crips (or Crypts --now *that* would be scary) and I didn't know a specific individual, effective retaliation on my part would be sketchy at best and the law would not be able to charge an individual. And no, they wouldn't just lock up every gang member across the nation. That's where intelligence comes in. To carry it further, if I am hit by Habib and I smack Mohammed in the mouth, did I really make an effective retaliation?

Finally, (sigh...) MI, just because something has a name doesn't make it reality. The Harlem Globetrotters really don't play all over the globe. Nor do they trot across it betweeen venues. OK, it's a "global war on terrorism". Iraq is on the globe (hey, how about that!). That's another, um, slightly weak correlation. There are no doubt terrorists in Canada. Canada is on the globe. LET'S ATTACK!!!! ...I was going to use the US as the ludicrous example here, but of course, thanks to the patriot act, we already are attacking ourselves...
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 23/01/05 09:34 AM

The fact of NOT having an attack on U.S soil holds a better argument when it comes to our effectiveness of the war in Iraq. You can trot around comparisons of the wars effectiveness to things like...uh,...lets say the macarena just to spout words out of your mouth, but when you sit back and take a look around (and not hold a bias opinion about the person who waged the war) you will see some sort of connection in why America has not experienced an attack since. You should not attack my profession in the military to try to persuade me to accept your point. I did not resort to calling a ball-less son of a bitch for getting out of the Army before or during the war just to make you see my side of the argument. As for your Harlem Globetrotters relation, do they not travel the "globe", peforming in other countries,(I really don't know, I am not a basketball person at all)
Their tour schedule

Well maybe they aren't traveling to "Canada" right now but maybe someday right?
Posted by: InfX708

Re: inaguaration protestors - 23/01/05 10:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by electrobuzz:
Um, InfinITE. Did you look at the link? Acts of terrorism under Carter -- one. By Puerto Rico! Carter was a peace broker, a diplomat, a military man who served overseas with distinction and one the world could respect. Acts under Reagan -- 18. You tell me what he did about terrorism, besides turn tail and run? Acts under HW Bush - zero. Again, a diplomat, a pilot who was in the big war, a man the world could respect.
Carter started the whole Iranian hatred of America.
Assassination of Former Chilean Diplomat, September 21, 1976: In Washington, exiled Chilean Foreign Minister Orlando Letelier was killed by a car bomb.
Iran Hostage Crisis, November 4, 1979: After President Carter agreed to admit the Shah of Iran into the U.S., Iranian radicals seized the U.S. embassy in Tehran and took 66 American diplomats hostage. Thirteen hostages were soon released, but the remaining 53 were held until their release on January 20, 1981.
Domestic Terrorism, January 27-29, 1975: Puerto Rican nationalists bombed a Wall Street bar, killing four and injuring 60; 2 days later, the Weather Underground claims responsibility for an explosion in a bathroom at the U.S. Department of State in Washington.
That's four under the "peace-broker". And that's incidents only involving US citizens.
Reagan directed the bombing of Tripoli by manned aircraft. Reagan was a bit busy trying to not directly engage anyone with military force. To do so would place us in close proximity of the USSR, which might be perceived as a threat by them. To judge either of these men on their response to terrorism is unfair at best. Their plates were rather full at the time. Avoiding nuclear war or at least a direct confrontation with the Warsaw Pact was the theme of the time. War by proxy was the preferred method of controlling each other's influence. We had Vietnam, the USSR had Afghanistan. Both sides supported the enemy in each case. Under GHW Bush, we had the Gulf War, which is generally thought of as the source of controntation that lead to the direct attacks on the US. bin Laden isn't exactly a rational individual. His problem with us stems from the decision of the Saudi government to use US-led forces to protect the kingdom and to retake Kuwait. I'm not gonna disagree that the Bush-Saud oil connection might have played a part. Osama thought he could protect the kingdom with Al-Quida. He was snubbed by the royal family and decided that it was America's fault. That's where this whole thing came from. He basically "went postal". The problem is that we ignored what should have been a wake-up call when the WTC was bombed the first time. The blame game could continue to overlap heading back in time. Is it the fault of the EO that prevented assassination of foreigners by the CIA? Perhaps it's the fault of the Crusaders for not wiping out the fledgling muslim religion. Bottom line is, it's not gonna stop; it's here to stay, unless we change our methods and begin what most people view as unacceptable. The best we can do is try to contain it. By the way, what's with the name calling? That's a nice mature tactic - learn that one from the protesters?
Posted by: InfX708

Re: inaguaration protestors - 23/01/05 10:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by electrobuzz:
Um, MI. You fully credited the lack of attacks on our soil since '01 to the Iraq War. We haven't had a macerena-like dance since the Iraq-attack either, so keep on fighting.
So are you insinuating that perhaps terrorism is simply a fashion and that its time has passed? Surely you don't think that had we not defeated Germany we would never have gone to the moon. Thank god we invaded Afghanistan, or the rise in Xterra ownership wouldn't have occurred, under your "logic". Look for coorelations in there someplace. The enemy can't fight you everywhere. How about this for a simplified analogy. Large ships have zinc plates on them. The zinc is more reactive than steel. The seawater attacks the plates rather than the steel. So, even though the ship loses the plates, the ship itself remains unharmed.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 23/01/05 11:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by electrobuzz:
Um, InfinITE. Did you look at the link? Acts of terrorism under Carter -- one. By Puerto Rico! Carter was a peace broker, a diplomat, a military man who served overseas with distinction and one the world could respect. Acts under Reagan -- 18. You tell me what he did about terrorism, besides turn tail and run? Acts under HW Bush - zero. Again, a diplomat, a pilot who was in the big war, a man the world could respect.

Regarding "blame". Have you read anything I've written? [b]Yes let's get the shitbags that attacked us.
We're kicking the crap out of the the wrong freaking country. Besides, we already had Iraq under our thumb. Let's track down the origin of the terrorists who flew into the Trade Centers and attack there, shall we?[/b]
A. I was not refering to an attack that occured while Carter was president. Guess you were sleeping in history class on the day he let Islam go to shit, and screwed Iran over, thus throwing Islam into the shit bucket, and allowing radical clerics to gain control.

We could go on about how he catered to the needs of Arafat, and Castro and allowed them to flurish, or how he cratered the American economy.

How about his dealings with N.Korea, yup he hleped them get to where they are today.Jimmy Carter signed a treaty with the North Koreans in the early 1990’s, by which they agreed not to develop such weapons on the condition that the United States give them the very materials and technology to do so.

The C.I.A. under Carter helped to re-establish Somoza's army as a terrorist force against the people of Nicaragua. These "contras" assassinated social workers, doctors and civilians, burned crops, and tried to exterminate any possibility of social reform that the Sandinistas created.

Carter continued to arm Indonesia's army dictatorship as well as give diplomatic support (vetoing U.N. resolutions to end the atrocities in the former Portuguese colony). This war has killed more than 200,000 East Timorese, making it the worst genocide relative to population since World War II. Carter did nothing to pressure General Suharto (Indonesia's chief of state) to end the war. He was an ally and major supporter of the Indonesian military's repression of its own population, as well as the slaughter of the East Timorese people.

Carter declared his support for the Shah of Iran-despite the rampant torture practiced by the Shah's secret police.

Carter secretly supported the genocidal Pol Pot government ousted by Vietnam in 1979.

In retrospect, Carter’s much-ballyhooed “Camp David Peace Accord” yielded as much as anything ever agreed upon by Neville Chamberlain and Hitler.

Carter presided over the most important foreign-policy failure in the last quarter of a century.

But hey, its not like he is linked to the oil for food scam.....oh wait, he is...

As for Ronald regan...hahahaaaa.. you have got to be shitting me? Do you hear anything out of Lybia any more?

BTW: I have served in tow "wars".... Jimmy Carter is nothing special, they question is.. have you done any time in the military?

B. Why should we only go after the terrorist who attacked us on 9/11... should we just let other terrorist that pose a threat go free? Oh thats right, we have to wait until they kill Americans before we can do anything... [ThumbsDown]
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 23/01/05 11:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by InfX708:
[QUOTE] By the way, what's with the name calling? That's a nice mature tactic - learn that one from the protesters?
Didn't you know...thats the only tatic the Left has to use. Logic, hisroty and reason have no place in the mind of a liberal. You have to remember, these are the peopel who are ok with Saddam killing 4,000+ people a month, and rewarding N.Korea with Nuclear technology.

But hey, its not like the backed Arafat..... oh wait.... they did.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 23/01/05 11:15 AM

infinatenexus,
[ThumbsUp] That's pretty funny laugh [ThumbsUp]
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 23/01/05 11:15 AM

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=st...ticut_execution

More protestors doing stupid $hit. In this case, the dude actually wants to die, but the loving people on Conn. don't want him to! Errrrrrr. Will people protest about anything these days?

Funny as hell that the idiot Athiest dude didn't have his own way when it came to the Religous Inaguration ceremony. Now I'm an Athiest myself, but that dude just gives us Athiests a bad name. If you don't want to listen to a Religous ceremony, then don't fricken go. Or Turn the damn TV off. Jesus Christ (Pun intended) what an idiot.
Posted by: electrobuzz

Re: inaguaration protestors - 23/01/05 11:26 AM

InfX -- True, true - namecalling gets us nowhere.
And, hey, in regards to you -- I called ya chief yesterday generically. I didn't want to really potentially insult you and call you "sir"! [Wave] And MI, thanks for serving, bro. I know the hierarchy of the military doesn't allow for extensive freedom of thought, nor should it, but watch and openly consider what's going on - please. And see how all of us are being deluded by flowery words and icons. I'll do the same from here.

Bottom line, Iraq was already under our control. I understand Karbola yielded some nasty stuff. As I understand it, that had a short shelf life and a limited range of effect, compared to what was pitched to the UN in early 2003. Regardless, freakin' kudos to Delta company for finding it! How about the "mushroom cloud" that Condi and Bush said could come forth from Iraq? Mmm...yeah. All of this expense, effort and loss was hardly worth attacking a country that was already crippled.

Again, I am saying the cause and effect relationship between the Iraq war and the lack terrorism by foreigners on our soil is weak. 93-01 saw no foreigners attack. 8 whole years! No war. Just think how much better it could be if we addressed the real killers?

InfX, you are doing your best with what you got over there. And for all the folks that say you signed on, well you did -- and war/rescue/whatever goes with the territory. I left after 8 years (10 years ago) -- who knows, I might still get called.
But no one expected 18 month deployments only to return and go back for another 18. The stress on American families is ridiculous. The loss of wages by Reservists is untenable by many. And all of this was determined by a sniveling little fuck who snorted coke and rode on Mommy's apron strings when his time to serve came up. He's too weak to fight and clearly too weak to think.

Bottom line, this war is entirely based on lies. Unless you go with the current reason being spouted (look for version 4.3.2 soon!) And Bush is looking for more conflict, errrrr opportunity to bring freedom. As I've said: we cannot be the world's police. But based on that bizarre inaugural speech, we're gonna light it up all over. The leader of my country has made an urgent pledge spread freedom to "the darkest corners of our world". What the hell? Freedom is not Country Crock. It is not a product; it is an ideal, an attainable one that CANNOT BE IMPOSED.

The inaugural speech seemed more fitting for a 30's German Beer Hall. We need to push for balance in '06. Impeachment proceedings after that, based on the WMD fiasco. To state a false, fraudulent or unfounded report to Congress is a felony. And maybe then we can find the real assholes that attacked us!

Amen, Dig, that is what I am saying. Let's open it up. Let's go for the real killers, probably the Saudis. Not some castrated dictator who couldn't even hide himself.

EDIT:
Can we please consider things beyond 0 and 1? conservative/liberal? black/white? christian/muslim? left/right? The world has never been that simple. Generally, breaking it down to that is what leads to war.

And inapplicable statements come from that, infinITE. Let's see, in 5 elections, I voted republican twice, democrat twice and independent once. I actually thought about what was best for my situation and my country. Hey, what say we shoot for a new buzzword? THINK!
Posted by: Mobycat

Re: inaguaration protestors - 23/01/05 11:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by InfX708:
Carter started the whole Iranian hatred of America.
Bullshit. Read up on the history of Iran and the Shah.

The Shah was leader from 1941 to 1979. He was ousted in 1953, but got his power back with the backing of...you guessed it, the United States - under Eisenhower.

It really had nothing to do with Carter, other than the CONTINUED U.S. backing of the Shah.
Posted by: Mobycat

Re: inaguaration protestors - 23/01/05 11:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by InfX708:

Assassination of Former Chilean Diplomat, September 21, 1976: In Washington, exiled Chilean Foreign Minister Orlando Letelier was killed by a car bomb.

That's four under the "peace-broker". And that's incidents only involving US citizens.
Orlando Letelier was a US citizen? Interesting.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 23/01/05 11:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by electrobuzz:
The leader of my country has made an urgent pledge spread freedom to "the darkest corners of our world". What the hell? Freedom is not Country Crock. It is not a product; it is an ideal, an attainable one that CANNOT BE IMPOSED.
I could not agree with this statement more electro. [ThumbsUp]

What works in countries like the U.S., Canada, England, etc. are not necessarily good for the countries of the middle east. Please don't jump to a conclusion thinking that what I'm saying is that the middle east is better off under dictatorships, because that's not what I mean. I'm saying that countries in the middle east (i.e. Iraq) don't want to be "United States II", and by having us come in with guns ablazing saying, "This is what works for us, so you should do this too", is not the way to conduct diplomacy.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 23/01/05 11:59 AM

I could not agree more with the some of the points you have presented to the table, I do agree witht he fact that not every country can be an "America II" all we can do now is hope that what we do bring to the nation of Iraq(education, economy, health) does it's intended puposes. We can all argue and call for impeachments but you remember how hard it was to try Clinton (and he did deserve it) The hearings went on for ever and had no result. All it would do this time is drag on for three of his four years, get nowhere and delay the forward movement of the war; then we would be stuck with Cheney in charge [Spit] if it does happen. I personally have reasons for voting Bush and they have alot to do with me being in the Service (mainly that Kerry wanted to take away our body armor) So what I think we can all agree on though is that there is a big terrorist threat in Iraq right now and if we don't finish taking care of it then we will pay for it later.
Posted by: electrobuzz

Re: inaguaration protestors - 23/01/05 12:05 PM

Damn, good point, MI! [LOL] "Cheney In Charge". Sounds like an ABC sitcom.

OK -- GO EAGLES, GO STEELERS!

And since I'm a Chiefs fan, NO BLOWOUTS!
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 23/01/05 12:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by electrobuzz:

Bottom line, Iraq was already under our control.
LMAO, you have got to be kidding me? He was only financing terrorism, seeking new technilogy, developing new weapong, and oh yeah... shooting at out planes.


Quote:
Originally posted by electrobuzz:
The stress on American families is ridiculous. The loss of wages by Reservists is untenable by many.
Hate to tell ya, but that comes with the job.

Quote:
Originally posted by electrobuzz:

Bottom line, this war is entirely based on lies. Unless you go with the current reason being spouted (look for version 4.3.2 soon!)
Blame Europe they provided tons of intelligence, and be sure to thank Bill Clinton for crippeling our nations intelligence agancies.

Quote:
Originally posted by electrobuzz:
And Bush is looking for more conflict, errrrr opportunity to bring freedom. As I've said: we cannot be the world's police. But based on that bizarre inaugural speech, we're gonna light it up all over.
Good, as we should. Would you rather we sit and wait for another 9/11? I would much rather bring the fight to them.

Quote:
Originally posted by electrobuzz:
We need to push for balance in '06. Impeachment proceedings after that, based on the WMD fiasco. To state a false, fraudulent or unfounded report to Congress is a felony. And maybe then we can find the real assholes that attacked us!
Well impeach these folks as well:

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. that is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb,18,1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate,air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens.Carl Levin (D-MI),Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of an illicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction" - - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroys his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare,and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D,NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime . He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Quote:
Originally posted by electrobuzz:
Amen, Dig, that is what I am saying. Let's open it up. Let's go for the real killers, probably the Saudis. Not some castrated dictator who couldn't even hide himself.
Sounds good to me, they need a good old fassion bombing anyhow. My neice died in a terrorist attack paid for by th eSaudi Royal family, pay bick needs to be a bitch.

Quote:
Originally posted by electrobuzz:
EDIT:
Can you please consider things beyond 0 and 1? conservative/liberal? black/white? christian/muslim? The world has never been that simple. Generally, breaking it down to that is what leads to war.
Tell that to the terrorist.

Quote:
Originally posted by electrobuzz:
I actually thought about what was best for my situation and my country. Hey, what say we shoot for a new buzzword? THINK!
Me too, thats why I didn't vote for Jimme Carter II (John Kerry)
Posted by: Mobycat

Re: inaguaration protestors - 23/01/05 12:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mi_what:
I personally have reasons for voting Bush and they have alot to do with me being in the Service (mainly that Kerry wanted to take away our body armor)
This is not entirely true. Kerry's infamous "I voted for it before I voted against it" thing...

There was an $87 billion bill that Kerry co-sponsored that provided the armor. The bill didn't pass - it would have reversed tax cuts. The $87 billion one he voted against - didn't reverse the tax cuts. The one Kerry co-sponsored...Bush threatened to veto it if it passed.

So while Kerry may have "voted for before voting against", Bush in the same manner, opposed it before he supported it.

But that seems to come with the territory for Bush...be against something until enough pressure causes him to change his mind (Rice testifying, Bush testifying, etc).
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 23/01/05 12:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Digityzed:

What works in countries like the U.S., Canada, England, etc. are not necessarily good for the countries of the middle east. Please don't jump to a conclusion thinking that what I'm saying is that the middle east is better off under dictatorships, because that's [b]not
what I mean. I'm saying that countries in the middle east (i.e. Iraq) don't want to be "United States II", and by having us come in with guns ablazing saying, "This is what works for us, so you should do this too", is not the way to conduct diplomacy.[/b]
Ironically he Q'uran has a system of gonverment outlined in it, and it resembles a democracy.. I guess they forgot to read that chapter.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 23/01/05 01:38 PM

this is what we as Americans need to concentrate our protests on...Dumb people

Dumb people suck
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 23/01/05 01:41 PM

yeah, here's another...

funny mom

...I say we (us Xterra owners) should start a protest against these people. [ThumbsUp]
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 23/01/05 02:07 PM

"Archie forced Jasmine's 9-year-old brother Jacorey to watch the attack and "told him that if he shed a tear that she was going to kill him, too," Cotton testified."

Oh damn, those poor kids. frown
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 23/01/05 02:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mi_what:
yeah, here's another...

funny mom

...I say we (us Xterra owners) should start a protest against these people. [ThumbsUp]
I say we do the "system" a favor and run her over after she is found guilty.
Posted by: InfX708

Re: inaguaration protestors - 23/01/05 02:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by electrobuzz:
93-01 saw no foreigners attack. 8 whole years!
Depends on your definition of U.S. soil. I consider US soil to be, as most people around the world, any locations within the geographical US, military installations, and diplomatic facilities. That said, there were were at least 10 incidents that meet the above criteria. There were several more involving either direct attacks on U.S. citizens or at random. I counted at least 2 within the geographical confines of the US - one was a Palestinian shooting people at the Empire State Building and one was letter bombs sent to a NY newspaper from Alexandria.
Posted by: electrobuzz

Re: inaguaration protestors - 23/01/05 03:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by InfX708:
Quote:
Originally posted by electrobuzz:
[b] 93-01 saw no foreigners attack. 8 whole years!
Depends on your definition of U.S. soil. I consider US soil to be, as most people around the world, any locations within the geographical US, military installations, and diplomatic facilities. That said, there were were at least 10 incidents that meet the above criteria. There were several more involving either direct attacks on U.S. citizens or at random. I counted at least 2 within the geographical confines of the US - one was a Palestinian shooting people at the Empire State Building and one was letter bombs sent to a NY newspaper from Alexandria.[/b]
True, but the context of what we are discussing is "keeping terror from here at home"..."keeping the fight over there'"

Also, we'd be remiss to ignore the massacre in OKC in 1995. Not foreign, but some truly misguided souls there.

Hm, Columbine 1999? Was that "terrorism" as well?
Interesting how the definition can expand or contract.
Posted by: Mobycat

Re: inaguaration protestors - 23/01/05 03:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by InfX708:
Quote:
Originally posted by electrobuzz:
[b] 93-01 saw no foreigners attack. 8 whole years!
Depends on your definition of U.S. soil. I consider US soil to be, as most people around the world, any locations within the geographical US, military installations, and diplomatic facilities. That said, there were were at least 10 incidents that meet the above criteria. There were several more involving either direct attacks on U.S. citizens or at random. I counted at least 2 within the geographical confines of the US - one was a Palestinian shooting people at the Empire State Building and one was letter bombs sent to a NY newspaper from Alexandria.[/b]
Let's see...

1986 - Berlin Disco.
1988 - Lockerbie.
1993 - Shootings outside CIA Headquarters (5 days into Clinton's Admin)

So why didn't Reagan and Bush 41 do enough to prevent anything?
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 23/01/05 05:28 PM

You also forgot to add the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. That was foreign terorists as well.
Posted by: InfX708

Re: inaguaration protestors - 23/01/05 05:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Mobycat:
Quote:
Originally posted by InfX708:
[b]
Quote:
Originally posted by electrobuzz:
[b] 93-01 saw no foreigners attack. 8 whole years!
Depends on your definition of U.S. soil. I consider US soil to be, as most people around the world, any locations within the geographical US, military installations, and diplomatic facilities. That said, there were were at least 10 incidents that meet the above criteria. There were several more involving either direct attacks on U.S. citizens or at random. I counted at least 2 within the geographical confines of the US - one was a Palestinian shooting people at the Empire State Building and one was letter bombs sent to a NY newspaper from Alexandria.[/b]
Let's see...

1986 - Berlin Disco.
1988 - Lockerbie.
1993 - Shootings outside CIA Headquarters (5 days into Clinton's Admin)

So why didn't Reagan and Bush 41 do enough to prevent anything?[/b]
I never said there were no acts of terrorism during those administrations. Some of the car combings in the middle east at that time that were done by radio control could have been prevented had the advice of a few SEALs been heeded. They wanted to install transmitters on the various US buildings that would broadcast across the spectrum and detonate the bombs before they reached their target. The liberals didn't want to have bombs going off around civilians and so they nixed the idea. And why do you think that acts of terrorism can be prevented? They can't be. There are always going to be individuals who think they can change national policy by attacking citizens. The best you can hope for is to make the price of supporting these non-state actors too high. Libya felt it in '86, Afghanistan felt it in '01, Iraq in '03. Just as Japan realized it went one step too far in '41, perhaps those supporting terrorism will realize the consequences of pushing us.
Posted by: xterrapin

Re: inaguaration protestors - 26/01/05 01:22 PM

My son...

myself...

and a few thousand other people were there.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 26/01/05 01:28 PM

Poor kid didn't have a choice huh? They still lost. Better luck with a better candidate next time. Maybe we should keep the kiddies away from FU signs and slogans? Don't they get enough of that in RAP songs?
Oh, First Amendment, Gatta love it.
Posted by: Mobycat

Re: inaguaration protestors - 26/01/05 01:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Conundrum:
Poor kid didn't have a choice huh?
Kinda like those kids at the pro-life protests?
Posted by: 2001frontier

Re: inaguaration protestors - 26/01/05 01:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Digityzed:
Quote:
Originally posted by electrobuzz:
[b]The leader of my country has made an urgent pledge spread freedom to "the darkest corners of our world". What the hell? Freedom is not Country Crock. It is not a product; it is an ideal, an attainable one that CANNOT BE IMPOSED.
I could not agree with this statement more electro. [ThumbsUp]

What works in countries like the U.S., Canada, England, etc. are not necessarily good for the countries of the middle east. Please don't jump to a conclusion thinking that what I'm saying is that the middle east is better off under dictatorships, because that's not what I mean. I'm saying that countries in the middle east (i.e. Iraq) don't want to be "United States II", and by having us come in with guns ablazing saying, "This is what works for us, so you should do this too", is not the way to conduct diplomacy.[/b]
You know I have been hearing this same lame-brained argument since the beginning of the war. There are several things wrong with it.

1) The argument is rooted in elitism. Many that float it think the people of the region are to stupid to rule themselves. This is of course true racism. It comes from the same racist leftists in America that think blacks can't take care of themselves without the evil white man helping them out and treating them like children.

2) We are not making them America II. Their government will not be like ours. It will be theirs. They will create their own constitution and laws. The interim government is not even like ours.

3) This is not diplomacy. This is a war.

4) The people in Iraq want to vote. Recent polls showed that 80% were likely to turn out to vote, DESPITE the threat of violence. The Iraqis want to rule themselves.

5) This has worked many times in the past. Japan is probably the best example. Turkey and Afghanistan would be two others that come to mind. We have fought to free many peoples from evil men, and the fact is they have pretty much all wanted to be free to govern themselves.

We have dealt with terrorists trying to derail elections before. The same thing happened then that will happen Sunday. The people will risk everything to exercise their freedom.
Posted by: 2001frontier

Re: inaguaration protestors - 26/01/05 01:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Conundrum:
Poor kid didn't have a choice huh? They still lost. Better luck with a better candidate next time. Maybe we should keep the kiddies away from FU signs and slogans? Don't they get enough of that in RAP songs?
Oh, First Amendment, Gatta love it.
Don't mind him. He isn't for either party. He is your average hypocrite American communist. He lives in a nice house, drives a fancy car, and is quite the consumer. Of course he wants the rest of us to give up all the stuff we have for the good of the proletariate. :rolleyes:
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 26/01/05 04:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Mobycat:
Quote:
Originally posted by Conundrum:
[b]Poor kid didn't have a choice huh?
Kinda like those kids at the pro-life protests?[/b]
OR The pro-choice protests? Disturbing to watch them teach garbage to kids and wonder why they hate later on in life. Give the phsycologists something to do I guess.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 26/01/05 04:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 2001frontier:
Quote:
Originally posted by Conundrum:
[b]Poor kid didn't have a choice huh? They still lost. Better luck with a better candidate next time. Maybe we should keep the kiddies away from FU signs and slogans? Don't they get enough of that in RAP songs?
Oh, First Amendment, Gatta love it.
Don't mind him. He isn't for either party. He is your average hypocrite American communist. He lives in a nice house, drives a fancy car, and is quite the consumer. Of course he wants the rest of us to give up all the stuff we have for the good of the proletariate. :rolleyes: [/b]
Frontier, if you're ever in Phoenix, I'd be honored if you'd let me buy you a beer.
Posted by: Lincoln

Re: inaguaration protestors - 26/01/05 05:01 PM

Been a while since we have heard from the resident commie. Which psychopath group were you marching with Xterrapin? Atleast you are surrounding your kid with good role models such as yourself.

:rolleyes:
Posted by: xterrapin

Re: inaguaration protestors - 26/01/05 05:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln:
Which psychopath group were you marching with Xterrapin?
We started at Malcolm X park with the D.A.W.N. rally (approx ten-thousand people; police estimates) and ended the march at the "White" House where the Anarchists, ANSWER and the Pink Bloc ended their marches. From there, we went inside the secured area and observed the parade. Great fun, great (but cold) day!
The psychopath was the lady in the mink coat and the bling-bling "W" pin that punched my wife in the gut (no joke); thank you very much.
Posted by: xterrapin

Re: inaguaration protestors - 26/01/05 05:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 2001frontier:
Don't mind him. He isn't for either party. He is your average hypocrite American communist.

Hey Ward Cleaver, you spelled that wrong; it's "AmeriKKKa! Dumbass redneck, date raping, wife beating, insecure, goat fucking robot.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 26/01/05 06:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by xterrapin:
Quote:
Originally posted by 2001frontier:
[b]Don't mind him. He isn't for either party. He is your average hypocrite American communist.
Hey Ward Cleaver, you spelled that wrong; it's "AmeriKKKa! Dumbass redneck, date raping, wife beating, insecure, goat fucking robot.[/b]
That was constructive. :rolleyes:
Posted by: MichaelShaw

Re: inaguaration protestors - 26/01/05 07:19 PM

I loved the post full of quotes. Here's one for you:

We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.

Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 24, 2001.

You can say anything you want when you quote what others have already said.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 04:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by xterrapin:
My son...

myself...

and a few thousand other people were there.
I should have drove up there... just to laugh at you guys. Do you have any clue how comical you look? Seriously, what are you going to accomplish by marching in the streets with cardboard signs? All you guys are doing is tearing a divide in this nation, and showing the rest of the world how disrespectful you are towards our elected leader, makes you look real immature... or even French.

But that's ok, I am sure you.. and your little whistle got allot accomplished, I mean...the President will listen to people dressed as bumbs, blowing whistles chanting all kinds of clever slogans. :rolleyes:
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 04:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MichaelShaw:
I loved the post full of quotes. Here's one for you:

We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. [b]And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.


Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 24, 2001.

You can say anything you want when you quote what others have already said.[/b]
Once again:

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. that is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb,18,1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate,air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens.Carl Levin (D-MI),Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of an illicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction- - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroys his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare,and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D,NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime . He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 05:02 AM

I think if we're going to put quotes from people in our posts, we should also list the website they're copied and pasted from. Otherwise, what's the point?
Posted by: Lincoln

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 05:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by xterrapin:
The psychopath was the lady in the mink coat and the bling-bling "W" pin that punched my wife in the gut (no joke); thank you very much.
I have to say that it surprises me, but I have to say that I am sorry about that. Usually the unreasonable psychos are on the left, but we have ours also. She may have been motivated by all the comunists, anarchists, flag burners, US hating idiots around here. Either way, no excuse for punching your wife.
Posted by: MBFlyerfan

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 06:01 AM

I especially like the BUSH:A MOTHERFUCKER sign. I am sure that influenced some people to your cause who werent already firmly entrenched. Politics is persuasion, you guys are persuading no one.

Xterrapin, sorry to hear your wife was punched. Thats just not right.
Posted by: 2001frontier

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 06:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by xterrapin:
Quote:
Originally posted by 2001frontier:
[b]
Don't mind him. He isn't for either party. He is your average hypocrite American communist.


Hey Ward Cleaver, you spelled that wrong; it's "AmeriKKKa! Dumbass redneck, date raping, wife beating, insecure, goat fucking robot.[/b]
Sounds like I hit a nerve with the truth there. When you crossing the border?

This illustrates perfectly how the left reacts when you call them on their shallow bullshit.
Posted by: xterrapin

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 06:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 2001frontier:
Quote:
Originally posted by xterrapin:
[b]
Quote:
Originally posted by 2001frontier:
[b]
Don't mind him. He isn't for either party. He is your average hypocrite American communist.

Hey Ward Cleaver, you spelled that wrong; it's "AmeriKKKa! Dumbass redneck, date raping, wife beating, insecure, goat fucking robot.[/b]
Sounds like I hit a nerve with the truth there. When you crossing the border?

This illustrates perfectly how the left reacts when you call them on their shallow bullshit.[/b]
No nerve hit whatsoever; I'm just not putting up with that crap anymore. I've given up on backing up my views with fact and trying to persuade others into my way of the thinking; I am now resolved to that fact that 51% of registered voters are complete morons and I will continue to call them that (amongst other things) to their face. Fuck it, I'm a sore loser.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 06:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by xterrapin:
Quote:
Originally posted by 2001frontier:
[b]
Quote:
Originally posted by xterrapin:
[b]
quote:
Originally posted by 2001frontier:
Don't mind him. He isn't for either party. He is your average hypocrite American communist.

Hey Ward Cleaver, you spelled that wrong; it's "AmeriKKKa! Dumbass redneck, date raping, wife beating, insecure, goat fucking robot.[/b]
Sounds like I hit a nerve with the truth there. When you crossing the border?

This illustrates perfectly how the left reacts when you call them on their shallow bullshit.[/b]
No nerve hit whatsoever; I'm just not putting up with that crap anymore. I've given up on backing up my views with fact and trying to persuade others into my way of the thinking; I am now resolved to that fact that 51% of registered voters are complete morons and I will continue to call them that (amongst other things) to their face. Fuck it, I'm a sore loser.
Don't worry. Us in the 51% are convinced 49% of voters are complete morons, and we'll continue to call them that to their face. Fuck it, I hate sore losers...
Posted by: 2001frontier

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 06:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by xterrapin:
Quote:
Originally posted by 2001frontier:
[b]
Quote:
Originally posted by xterrapin:
[b]
quote:
Originally posted by 2001frontier:
Don't mind him. He isn't for either party. He is your average hypocrite American communist.

Hey Ward Cleaver, you spelled that wrong; it's "AmeriKKKa! Dumbass redneck, date raping, wife beating, insecure, goat fucking robot.[/b]
Sounds like I hit a nerve with the truth there. When you crossing the border?

This illustrates perfectly how the left reacts when you call them on their shallow bullshit.[/b]
No nerve hit whatsoever; I'm just not putting up with that crap anymore. I've given up on backing up my views with fact and trying to persuade others into my way of the thinking; I am now resolved to that fact that 51% of registered voters are complete morons and I will continue to call them that (amongst other things) to their face. Fuck it, I'm a sore loser.
You got the loser part right at least. You are a communist dude. You have devoted your misquided beliefs to a dead religion.
Posted by: Mobycat

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 07:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Digityzed:
I think if we're going to put quotes from people in our posts, we should also list the website they're copied and pasted from. Otherwise, what's the point?
Not to mention, almost all are taken out of context - or rather, they are saying he has *tried* to get them and is continuing to try...NOT that he HAS them.
Posted by: Mobycat

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 07:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Conundrum:
Quote:
Originally posted by Mobycat:
[b]
Quote:
Originally posted by Conundrum:
[b]Poor kid didn't have a choice huh?
Kinda like those kids at the pro-life protests?[/b]
OR The pro-choice protests? Disturbing to watch them teach garbage to kids and wonder why they hate later on in life. Give the phsycologists something to do I guess.[/b]
Any protests on either side that I've seen...

It's the pro-life people who drag their kids there, not the pro-choice.

And I don't see any of the pro-choice people "hating" as you put it.

Pro-choice people say let people do as they choose. Pro-life people are saying, "hey, you shouldn't be allowed to make the choice."
Posted by: 2001frontier

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 08:13 AM

Well that is convenient since you agree with their position. Pro-life and Pro-choice are dishonest names for the groups. How about pro-abortion and anti-abortion?
Posted by: Mobycat

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 08:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 2001frontier:
Well that is convenient since you agree with their position. Pro-life and Pro-choice are dishonest names for the groups. How about pro-abortion and anti-abortion?
Actually no, those last two are dishonest.

That would be just the same as calling them pro-life and anti-life. Or pro-choice and anti-choice.

And I wouldn't call it convenient, as I do not engage in the debate as far as protests go. I have never attended anything as a participant, only an observer.

This last week they were all in DC. (caused traffic to be hell...damn them both! smile ) And I can tell you from my own viewing - the pro-life groups were FILLED with children. The pro-choice groups were not - they did have children, but not even close to the number of the pro-life groups.
Posted by: 2001frontier

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 08:34 AM

Wrong. They are either for abortion to be legal or not. There is nothing dishonest about it. Pro-abortion doesn't mean that they want all pregnancies to be aborted. I personally don't think it should be illegal, but I think it should be a last resort. To many people use it when they could carry the baby full term and let it go to a good home. Hell most people have an aversion to animal shelters that kill unwanted dogs, but don't have a problem with a baby being killed.

As to the protests, you think there stance may have something to do with the fact they actually have children?
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 08:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Mobycat:
Quote:
Originally posted by Conundrum:
[b]
Quote:
Originally posted by Mobycat:
[b]
quote:
Originally posted by Conundrum:
Poor kid didn't have a choice huh?
Kinda like those kids at the pro-life protests?[/b]
OR The pro-choice protests? Disturbing to watch them teach garbage to kids and wonder why they hate later on in life. Give the phsycologists something to do I guess.[/b]
Any protests on either side that I've seen...

It's the pro-life people who drag their kids there, not the pro-choice.

And I don't see any of the pro-choice people "hating" as you put it.

Pro-choice people say let people do as they choose. Pro-life people are saying, "hey, you shouldn't be allowed to make the choice."

Could it be that if there are fewer kiddos at a pro-choice protest that maybe they were the victims of their parents "Choice"?
Posted by: Mobycat

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 09:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Conundrum:
Quote:
Originally posted by Mobycat:
[b]
Quote:
Originally posted by Conundrum:
[b]
quote:
Originally posted by Mobycat:
quote:
Originally posted by Conundrum:
Poor kid didn't have a choice huh?
Kinda like those kids at the pro-life protests?[/b]
OR The pro-choice protests? Disturbing to watch them teach garbage to kids and wonder why they hate later on in life. Give the phsycologists something to do I guess.[/b]
Any protests on either side that I've seen...

It's the pro-life people who drag their kids there, not the pro-choice.

And I don't see any of the pro-choice people "hating" as you put it.

Pro-choice people say let people do as they choose. Pro-life people are saying, "hey, you shouldn't be allowed to make the choice."

Could it be that if there are fewer kiddos at a pro-choice protest that maybe they were the victims of their parents "Choice"?

Uh yeah, right. This seems to be the newest view used by pro-lifers. "Hey, of course they don't have kids there...the kids were aborted."

While there are a lot of abortions performed, I'd bet very few of the people at the protests have had them.
Posted by: electrobuzz

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 09:36 AM

Ironic that the pro-life set is for 100% for "life" 'til they are born. Once the kids are born, if there is any struggle or strife, the "scum" is on their own...(e.g., she's just some crap-ass welfare momma shittin' out babies.) :rolleyes:

But hey, now they can get God and Gerber, thanks to those faith-based initiatives.
Posted by: off2cjb

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 09:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 2001frontier:
Well that is convenient since you agree with their position. Pro-life and Pro-choice are dishonest names for the groups. How about pro-abortion and anti-abortion?
I agree with anti-abortion and the other should be baby killers or toddler murderers.
Posted by: MyGoldX

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 10:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by off2cjb:
Quote:
Originally posted by 2001frontier:
[b]Well that is convenient since you agree with their position. Pro-life and Pro-choice are dishonest names for the groups. How about pro-abortion and anti-abortion?
I agree with anti-abortion and the other should be baby killers or toddler murderers.[/b]
So does that mean you are in favor of welfare to pay for crack-addicted womens babies or are you gonna just have them come live with you?
Posted by: 2001frontier

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 10:30 AM

That is a ridiculous statement. How the hell would you know? I just made the comment being a smart-ass. I personally know LOTS of women that have had abortions. It isn't uncommon at all.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 10:42 AM

Posted by: Mobycat

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 11:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Conundrum:
Twinge that nerve again? I didn't know I was pro-life and I guess I'm somehow now in the know on what the latest rant is. Interesting. Hey, if choice was instituted a year earlier, most likely I wouldn't be here.
I think there is room for abortion up to viability of the fetus. These days that's even more slippery of a slope than ever. There are people that'll do anything to keep their premature child alive.
Personally speaking I don't think I would support my wife in having an abortion, but I don't think that she would consider it either. There are allways exceptions. You've proven that.
Anything that can be done to reduce abortions has to be a good thing. Making them entirely illegal I won't support. Killing a baby that is late term is very wrong and it'll feel it. Keep that in mind.
I actually agree with most of what you have said. I'd rather someone not have an abortion. But in the end, it's not my choice, but hers (not to say I shouldn't have a say...but I'm not the one carrying it). As far as another couple...that's not my say whatsoever, and really none of my business...nor should it be anyone's business but the couple. Pro-lifer's don't agree.

Late term - yes, there's a major problem there.

Abortion should NEVER be used as birth control.
Posted by: babyX

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 11:15 AM

I love it when men debate abortion. smile
Posted by: 2001frontier

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 11:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by babyX:
I love it when men debate abortion. smile
Why? You don't think we have any right to talk about a decision our SO makes involving our offspring?
Posted by: jerseydevi1

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 11:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MyGoldX:
Quote:
Originally posted by off2cjb:
[b]
Quote:
Originally posted by 2001frontier:
[b]Well that is convenient since you agree with their position. Pro-life and Pro-choice are dishonest names for the groups. How about pro-abortion and anti-abortion?
I agree with anti-abortion and the other should be baby killers or toddler murderers.[/b]
So does that mean you are in favor of welfare to pay for crack-addicted womens babies or are you gonna just have them come live with you?[/b]
No, but I know I am for the crack-addicted women getting jobs, cleaning themselves up and dealing with thier problems like the rest of us.

Stupidity and lack of desire are no excuse for me having to pay for any of thier problems. Everyone hits hard times, and there needs to be a welfare system to help those who need it for a while, but not forever. A person should not be able to make a career of collecting welfare.
Posted by: GrayHam

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 12:00 PM

Question for all the anti-abortion people:

How many kids have you adopted?
How many lists are you on waiting to adopt?

Just curious.
Posted by: BoneCrusher

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 12:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln:
Quote:
Originally posted by xterrapin:
[b]The psychopath was the lady in the mink coat and the bling-bling "W" pin that punched my wife in the gut (no joke); thank you very much.
I have to say that it surprises me, but I have to say that I am sorry about that. Usually the unreasonable psychos are on the left, but we have ours also. She may have been motivated by all the comunists, anarchists, flag burners, US hating idiots around here. Either way, no excuse for punching your wife.[/b]
Id like to know what it was your wife was doing right before she got sucker punched by a mysterious lady in a mink coat and bling bling W pin.

And Id like the truth. Not that anyone has ever gotten a straight answer out of you as far as i recall but hey its nice to have dreams
Posted by: jerseydevi1

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 12:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GrayHam:
Question for all the anti-abortion people:

How many kids have you adopted?
How many lists are you on waiting to adopt?

Just curious.
How about you, smartass?
Mr. High and mighty.
I actually know 3 couples waiting for babies, prick.
Posted by: GrayHam

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 12:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by jerseydevi1:
Quote:
Originally posted by GrayHam:
[b]Question for all the anti-abortion people:

How many kids have you adopted?
How many lists are you on waiting to adopt?

Just curious.
How about you, smartass?
Mr. High and mighty.
I actually know 3 couples waiting for babies, prick.[/b]
None.

Sorry, was just wondering if any of the people so worried about the life of a child actually step up and get their hands dirty, so to speak . . .

I have heard many people say, if you don't want your baby, leave them up for adoption.

So . . . do many pro-lifers adopt?

Oh yeah.

Go Fuck Yourself.
Posted by: jerseydevi1

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 12:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GrayHam:
Quote:
Originally posted by jerseydevi1:
[b]
Quote:
Originally posted by GrayHam:
[b]Question for all the anti-abortion people:

How many kids have you adopted?
How many lists are you on waiting to adopt?

Just curious.
How about you, smartass?
Mr. High and mighty.
I actually know 3 couples waiting for babies, prick.[/b]
None.

Sorry, was just wondering if any of the people so worried about the life of a child actually step up and get their hands dirty, so to speak . . .

I have heard many people say, if you don't want your baby, leave them up for adoption.

So . . . do many pro-lifers adopt?

Oh yeah.

Go Fuck Yourself.[/b]
Incidentally, I happen to be pro-choice. If for no other reason than I had to make that decision once, and hated it, but we did go through with it, and I would hate to be a hypocrite. I have to live every day of my life knowing that I decided to kill my own child. Thant sucks. I hate it and myself for it.

and as far as fucking myself...well..ok, I called names first, so we're even now.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 01:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GrayHam:
Question for all the anti-abortion people:

How many kids have you adopted?
How many lists are you on waiting to adopt?

Just curious.
Ok, So I've been labeled. I'll answer.
Zero. We had considered it and still may someday, but the intrusion by the Government into our lives, incomes, criminal history, etc. would just be too much to bear.

How many have you aborted? I'd bet Zero as well.
Posted by: babyX

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 01:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 2001frontier:
Quote:
Originally posted by babyX:
[b]I love it when men debate abortion. smile
Why? You don't think we have any right to talk about a decision our SO makes involving our offspring?[/b]
Yes, you have every right to discuss it and to have a say in the decision, but when it comes right down to it, you can watch a woman go through that experience, but you will never experience it yourself.

You're effectively debating something that you will never, ever go through. It's interesting, that's all, to hear your viewpoints, considering you will never be pregnant. smile
Posted by: 2001frontier

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 01:19 PM

Like I said I am not anti-abortion. I just think it should not be used as widely as it is now. I think more about the children than the woman's point of view to be honest.
Posted by: BoneCrusher

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 01:20 PM

I absolutely love how this thread has gone through the gambit of emotions

from protesting GW's innaugeration to abortion

This is such a warm and fuzzy feeling
Posted by: electrobuzz

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 01:22 PM

Yesshir. Warm and fuzzy, just like Chimpy himself.

Just a hunch... if men got pregnant, abortion rights would be defined in the Constitution.
Posted by: 2001frontier

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 01:22 PM

Isn't it? I think Moby did it on purpose. All you got to do is say the A word for a nice debate to break out.
Posted by: babyX

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 01:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by electrobuzz:
Just a hunch... if men got pregnant, abortion rights would be defined in the Constitution.
Exactly!!
Posted by: jerseydevi1

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 01:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by babyX:
Quote:
Originally posted by 2001frontier:
[b]
Quote:
Originally posted by babyX:
[b]I love it when men debate abortion. smile
Why? You don't think we have any right to talk about a decision our SO makes involving our offspring?[/b]
Yes, you have every right to discuss it and to have a say in the decision, but when it comes right down to it, you can watch a woman go through that experience, but you will never experience it yourself.

You're effectively debating something that you will never, ever go through. It's interesting, that's all, to hear your viewpoints, considering you will never be pregnant. smile [/b]
I understand what you are trying to say, babyx, but those statements are ignorant as hell. Have you ever had an abortion? A girlfriend of mine and I had to make that decision once, and there is not a day that goes by that I don't think about and regret it. To assume that the male does not go through any emotion during a pregnancy or abortion is just plain rediculous. I thought you were smarter than that.

And before you start in with the "well most males..." argument, I would venture a guess that there are just as many females that feel the same ay about it. As some have said here already, they use it like birth control.
Posted by: Mobycat

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 01:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 2001frontier:
Isn't it? I think Moby did it on purpose. All you got to do is say the A word for a nice debate to break out.
I was about to say I didn't start it...but I guess in this one, I did. laugh
Posted by: babyX

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 01:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by jerseydevi1:
Quote:
Originally posted by babyX:
[b]
Quote:
Originally posted by 2001frontier:
[b]
quote:
Originally posted by babyX:
I love it when men debate abortion. smile
Why? You don't think we have any right to talk about a decision our SO makes involving our offspring?[/b]
Yes, you have every right to discuss it and to have a say in the decision, but when it comes right down to it, you can watch a woman go through that experience, but you will never experience it yourself.

You're effectively debating something that you will never, ever go through. It's interesting, that's all, to hear your viewpoints, considering you will never be pregnant. smile [/b]
I understand what you are trying to say, babyx, but those statements are ignorant as hell. Have you ever had an abortion? A girlfriend of mine and I had to make that decision once, and there is not a day that goes by that I don't think about and regret it. To assume that the male does not go through any emotion during a pregnancy or abortion is just plain rediculous. I thought you were smarter than that.

And before you start in with the "well most males..." argument, I would venture a guess that there are just as many females that feel the same ay about it. As some have said here already, they use it like birth control.

*ahem*

I never once said that the male in the situation, the father, if you will, did not experience any type of emotion. If you infer that from what I said, that's your issue, not mine. Don't put those words in my mouth.

However, biology simply dictates that you will never experience what the woman goes through. You just won't. You can experience similar emotions, but you will never see the situation through her eyes.
Posted by: socalpunx

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 02:00 PM

Whistle. (Time out)

Commercial break.

Have at it.
Posted by: Smith

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 02:06 PM

It's the smoker's fault. It's always the smokers.
Posted by: GrayHam

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 02:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Smith:
It's the smoker's fault. It's always the smokers.
Especially if he's a Christian.

Christian smokers. Assholes.
Posted by: 2001frontier

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 02:33 PM

Christian white smokers specifically.

Sweet, we finally got a thread in the ALR.
Posted by: MyGoldX

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 02:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GrayHam:
Question for all the anti-abortion people:

How many kids have you adopted?
How many lists are you on waiting to adopt?

Just curious.
Good question

Hmmm, no "why yes, I have adopted an unwanted child from a poor woman who was raped by her father" answers

I wonder why...all talk as usual from the peanut gallery.

" You must conform or else burn in HELL you baby killers"

Hypocrites
Posted by: xterrapin

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 03:27 PM

Posted by: BoneCrusher

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 03:52 PM

Sorry dude but I dont buy it for a second

Im sorry your wife got punched at a peace protest. But I don't buy that story for a second. a 60 year old rich woman doesnt go around starting fist fights. It just doesnt happen. There is more to the story there has to be. BUT since I know that noone ever gets the full story unless they are there Im gonna let this drop by saying If this fur clad lady ever reads this by some small miracle

Thanks for representing the Republican party you Ass.

Xterrapin

At least your passionate about your cause even though I think your nuts I at least admire your Passion about being nuts.

smile
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 05:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by xterrapin:
I am now resolved to that fact that 51% of registered voters are complete morons and I will continue to call them that (amongst other things) to their face. Fuck it, I'm a sore loser.
Your a pathetic excuse of a man, along with a sore loser. But that's ok, I hope you have fun living a pessimistic life riddled with flawed ideologies, and double standards. [ThumbsUp]
Posted by: xterrapin

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 06:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BoneCrusher:
Sorry dude but I dont buy it for a second

Im sorry your wife got punched at a peace protest. But I don't buy that story for a second. a 60 year old rich woman doesnt go around starting fist fights. It just doesnt happen. There is more to the story there has to be. BUT since I know that noone ever gets the full story unless they are there Im gonna let this drop by saying If this fur clad lady ever reads this by some small miracle

Thanks for representing the Republican party you Ass.

Xterrapin

At least your passionate about your cause even though I think your nuts I at least admire your Passion about being nuts.

smile
I wouldnt buy it if I didnt see it myself, so I know what ya mean.
Thanks for the kind words nontheless.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 06:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln:
I am not saying that they shouldn't be allowed to protest, I am just saying that if the media gives huge coverage to this...that it would be detrimental to the safety of our troops.

Vietnam being a prime example.
Posted by: Mobycat

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 06:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by infinatenexus:
Quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln:
[b]I am not saying that they shouldn't be allowed to protest, I am just saying that if the media gives huge coverage to this...that it would be detrimental to the safety of our troops.

Vietnam being a prime example.[/b]
The protests weren't detrimental to our troops in Vietnam. The Pentagon was. The Pentagon ...coughcoughMcNamaracoughcough... wouldn't let the troops do their job. Micromanaging at it's worst ...coughcoughRumsfeldcoughcough...
Posted by: InfX708

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 07:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by xterrapin:
[Our friend was like "call the cops", but I knew they wouldn't have helped me or punished her. Come on, I know this is the real world and I learned first hand already in my life that justice ain't all it's cracked up to be. Typically, whoever has the most money wins. And people with money don't really get in trouble.
I don't know how the D.C. cops are, but where I come from, the cops love nothing more than taking rich people to jail, especially those with attitudes. In the jail, we love having them even more. Perhaps I'm a sick twisted guy, but I love nothing more than breaking someone's spirit, especially the high and mighty. Ever seen a guy go from wearing a tuxedo to jail scrubs? Even more fun seeing the expression on his face when you toss the tux into a garment bag with his shoes on top of it. This was only really reserved for people that were assholes. You know, the "I pay your salary" types. Women are generally more fun - they don't deal well with the humiliation of being arrested.
Editted to add: I have to agree with Moby on this one. The biggest drain on morale is being reined in under the guise of "not sinking to their level". If you are a grunt, you are already living at there level and want nothing more than to give it back. I'm not so sure Sec Def is the one holding us back though. As far as protestors, we laugh them off. They just bitch and complain and never actually do anything. Totally ineffective.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 09:15 PM

Sorry folks, but having spent 13 months on the ground in Viet Nam, "The protests were detrimental to our troops in Vietnam", it lowered moral and was especially wonderful when you came home and herds of Pot Heads spit on you and called you a "baby killer".

[Finger]
Posted by: Lincoln

Re: inaguaration protestors - 27/01/05 09:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Tom:
Sorry folks, but having spent 13 months on the ground in Viet Nam, "The protests were detrimental to our troops in Vietnam", it lowered moral and was especially wonderful when you came home and herds of Pot Heads spit on you and called you a "baby killer".

[Finger]
That shit pisses me off so much. I definatly equate a lot of these jackass protestors today to the vietnam protestors of yesterday. This is the reason that I have a ridiculous hatred of Bob Dillon.
Posted by: babyX

Re: inaguaration protestors - 28/01/05 07:07 AM

Has anyone coming home fresh from Iraq been called a "baby killer"?

Seriously, I'm curious. Aside from those asshats in Dallas who refused to serve a guy at their convenience store, I mean.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 28/01/05 08:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Mobycat:
The protests weren't detrimental to our troops in Vietnam. The Pentagon was. The Pentagon ...coughcoughMcNamaracoughcough... wouldn't let the troops do their job. Micromanaging at it's worst ...coughcoughRumsfeldcoughcough...
So it was the pentagon calling the troops baby killers? Last time I looked, it was shit bags like John Kerry slandering the troops that gave them a bad name.

BTW: I stopped in a corner store ,owned by Arabs, while in uniform one time and they refused to serve me... gotta love 'em [ThumbsDown]
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 28/01/05 08:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln:
This is the reason that I have a ridiculous hatred of Bob Dillon.
[Huh?]

No way.

You hate Bob Dillon?

[Huh?]
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 28/01/05 08:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by infinatenexus:
BTW: I stopped in a corner store ,owned by Arabs, while in uniform one time and they refused to serve me... gotta love 'em [ThumbsDown]
The way that's written, it appears you feel that way about all Arabs. Nice attitude. [ThumbsDown] Do all the soldiers who are over there helping the people of Iraq feel the same way you do? God, I hope not!
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 28/01/05 08:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Digityzed:
The way that's written, it appears you feel that way about all Arabs. Nice attitude. [ThumbsDown] Do all the soldiers who are over there helping the people of Iraq feel the same way you do? God, I hope not!
So how do I feel about Arabs? All I said is that they refused to serve me because I was in the military, if you think I hate Arabs, then that's your prejudice, not mine. Its amazing the lengths some people will stretch things to slander others!
Posted by: GrayHam

Re: inaguaration protestors - 28/01/05 09:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by babyX:
Has anyone coming home fresh from Iraq been called a "baby killer"?
Are American troops performing abortions now?
Certainly not Late-Term Abortions, I hope . . .

God, this thread has started to eat itself.
Posted by: Smith

Re: inaguaration protestors - 28/01/05 10:52 AM

Two little potatoes are standing on the street corner. One is a prostitute.

How can you tell which one is the prostitute?

Hold on......
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

You're gonna love it.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

It's the one with the little sticker that says...

I - DA - HO

[Save the fine unicorns] [Save the fine unicorns] [Save the fine unicorns] [Save the fine unicorns] [Save the fine unicorns] [Save the fine unicorns]
Posted by: Kerensky97

Re: inaguaration protestors - 28/01/05 01:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by babyX:
Has anyone coming home fresh from Iraq been called a "baby killer"
Not really, people confuse hatred of Bush with hatred of the troops or hatred of the country. Visit and liberal web page like Daily KOS and see how many people are saying that the soldiers should be hung for what they're doing, you won't see many (there are a few though).

Now go to Free Republic or Little Green Footballs and compare the level of hatred towards liberals. I think the quote I saw there was, "Barbra Boxer needs to be impaled on a flag pole for criticizing Condoleeza Rice."

A peaceful protest seems so mild by comparison.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 29/01/05 02:44 PM

i feel bad for the troops.

but as far as bush goes... sooner or later all the red states will realize they made a bad choice...well actually thats not true. i dont think the red states really care. :rolleyes:
Posted by: MBFlyerfan

Re: inaguaration protestors - 29/01/05 03:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Unda_Kuva:
i feel bad for the troops.

but as far as bush goes... sooner or later all the red states will realize they made a bad choice...well actually thats not true. i dont think the red states really care. :rolleyes:
:rolleyes: [Rainbow]
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 29/01/05 05:19 PM

This thread needs to die. [Too much XOC]
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 29/01/05 09:32 PM

I can't believe this thread is still going!

As for red states or blue states, there are none if you look at USA Today's county by county count of the election results.

There are blue cities, the larger ones and the rest of the country, which is red, even in CA.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 30/01/05 11:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Tom:
I can't believe this thread is still going!

As for red states or blue states, there are none if you look at USA Today's county by county count of the election results.

There are blue cities, the larger ones and the rest of the country, which is red, even in CA.
That map is irrelevant, yet for some reason the Limbagh/Hannity crowd seems to think it means more than jack shit. :rolleyes:
Posted by: 2001frontier

Re: inaguaration protestors - 31/01/05 06:56 AM

Yeah it is irrelevant that the entire country besides the cities filled with inner city ghettos voted for Bush. Idiot. :rolleyes:
Posted by: Mobycat

Re: inaguaration protestors - 31/01/05 07:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 2001frontier:
Yeah it is irrelevant that the entire country besides the cities filled with inner city ghettos voted for Bush. Idiot. :rolleyes:
Geography doesn't mean anything.

So if you have a 10 square foot area, and 9 of them have one person each, but the 10th has 15 people, you'd get the same thing. So what? More *people* are in the smaller area.
Posted by: 2001frontier

Re: inaguaration protestors - 31/01/05 07:20 AM

Of course it has nothing to do with the makeup of the cities. What was I thinking?
Posted by: Weasel

Re: inaguaration protestors - 31/01/05 10:30 AM

You guys still here?

Get a life.

BTW. I still hate you 2001.

ok later

smile
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 31/01/05 10:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 2001frontier:
Yeah it is irrelevant that the entire country besides the cities filled with inner city ghettos voted for Bush. Idiot. :rolleyes:
[Huh?]

My God - you believe the shit that the conservative pundits spew about the Red/Blue map? I didn't think even you would to that far.

[LOL]

PS - check it out, not much red or blue, just lots of purple:



And here's a cartogram version (counties re-scaled to account for population):



Is acreage or population more relevant in a presidential election? :rolleyes:

Idiot.
Posted by: 2001frontier

Re: inaguaration protestors - 31/01/05 11:14 AM

Whteva. The majority still voted for the best man. [Finger]

Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 31/01/05 11:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 2001frontier:
Whteva. The majority still voted for the best man. [Finger]

Perhaps, but your map still shows jack-shit.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 31/01/05 11:49 AM

well I think that the word weasel keeps using (fundi's) could be the most annoying thing I have ever heard....... [Rainbow]

IMHO I think that there are screw balls in every group who are always different and detract from the overall persona or image of the larger group......Osoma and his goons do it for the middle east, protestors who do anything other then speak their mind peacefully in protest do it for their own country (USA and Canada, etc....).

Personally I think all this protesting Bush and shit is just a waste of energy and time as obviously he isn't gonna listen, and the country re-elected him so it was a total waste in the end anywayz.

Go back to work and stop disturbing the daily lives of those who want to work for their living and are concentrating on their own circle of influence, because you have no right to disrupt my daily works just to speak your mind! [Finger]
Posted by: 2001frontier

Re: inaguaration protestors - 31/01/05 12:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pnwbeers:
Quote:
Originally posted by 2001frontier:
[b]Whteva. The majority still voted for the best man. [Finger]

Perhaps, but your map still shows jack-shit.[/b]
OK.
Posted by: InfX708

Re: inaguaration protestors - 05/02/05 10:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Tom:
Sorry folks, but having spent 13 months on the ground in Viet Nam, "The protests were detrimental to our troops in Vietnam", it lowered moral and was especially wonderful when you came home and herds of Pot Heads spit on you and called you a "baby killer".

[Finger]
So far we haven't experienced that yet, thank god. I'm not the most diplomatic person - in case there was a question about that - and I'm not sure how I would react. Luckily, we can now blame PTSD and with today's society, get away with it.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 06/02/05 08:04 PM

After a bit over a year in Nam, the long haired pot head morons were more of an irritant than anything else, although it wasn't a real good idea to sneak up on me and surprise me for a while.

Liberals were then and are now very good at taking small bits of information out of context and then putting all the pieces back together in a new package, making that in their eyes the new truth. Then if anyone doesn't buy into the new truth, it just becomes a fact to Liberals that you are ignorant and don't have the capacity to understand the thoughts of intellectuals they see themselves as.

I can only hope they keep it up so they loose the next election just like the last one.

After getting out I became a teacher and when the word got out that I was in Viet Nam and could possibly get a PTSD attack if I got really upset, it did wonders for discipline.

I must confess I leaked the info to the student body!

Tom
Posted by: Mobycat

Re: inaguaration protestors - 07/02/05 06:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Tom:

Liberals were then and are now very good at taking small bits of information out of context and then putting all the pieces back together in a new package, making that in their eyes the new truth. Then if anyone doesn't buy into the new truth, it just becomes a fact to Liberals that you are ignorant and don't have the capacity to understand the thoughts of intellectuals they see themselves as.
conservatives aren't much better...

Al Gore and the internet, anyone?

Let's see...the actual quote: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

Which, by the way, was supported by Vint Cerf (look him up if you don't know who he is).

Now...the conservative spin:

"Al Gore said he invented the internet."

Let alone the Conservative bullshit about Gore and Love Canal and Gore and Love Story.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 02/03/05 08:08 AM

It's funny how the protestors during Vietnam are now the greedy, corporate stiffs who are Bush's biggest supporters.

I say if you can't beat them join them. I voted against Bush twice and lost both times. So now I am going to grow a mullet, buy any Nascar related item, fabricate "choppers" in my garage and wait untill 30,000 troops are dead before i realize that this was just a stupid way to get cheaper oil.
Posted by: Auditor_Kevin

Re: inaguaration protestors - 02/03/05 09:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by gorge camper:
[QB]It's funny how the protestors during Vietnam are now the greedy, corporate stiffs who are Bush's biggest supporters.

QB]
No they're not. But P.S. - keep up with the condescending attitude. It lost you the last two elections, but don't let that get in the way of a rational thought. Matter of fact, I wouldn't have it any other way!
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 02/03/05 09:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by gorge camper:
It's funny how the protestors during Vietnam are now the greedy, corporate stiffs who are Bush's biggest supporters.

I say if you can't beat them join them. I voted against Bush twice and lost both times. So now I am going to grow a mullet, buy any Nascar related item, fabricate "choppers" in my garage and wait untill 30,000 troops are dead before i realize that this was just a stupid way to get cheaper oil.
Tell you what. I'm a Republican. I hate Nascar. And I don't particularly care for choppers (they're too slow).

But one things for certain. If this war was for "cheaper oil", like so many liberals bitch and moan, then WHERE THE HELL IS THE CHEAPER OIL????

The point I'm trying to make, is, if the US wanted to go to war for cheaper oil, it would be far more cost effective to storm into Mexico and Venezuela, as those are two of the largest oil producing countries in the world, and they're right in our back yard. Interesting to note, BOTH of those countries produce more oil per year than Iraq. And if their productions were combined, it would be over 3 times the amount of oil that comes from Iraq.

Hmm... Cheaper to ship oil halfway around the world, or just pipe it from the south...

Hell, for that matter, we could take over Canada, and snag their 3 million barrels a day or so production, too...

And if we REALLY wanted to boost things, and HAD to take over a country in the middle east for oil, then it would be Iran, 'cause we've never liked that country, and they produce darn near twice the amount of oil that Iraq does.

Seriously, get your head out of the sand, wash up, and open your eyes. This war in Iraq was NOT about "cheaper oil".

[FYI: These numbers are based on 2002 World Oil Production Numbers, provided below:]

World Oil Production

The following is country-by-country ranking of the top oil producers in the world for the year 2002.

Country Million Barrels Per Day (2002)
United States 9.08
Saudi Arabia 8.54
Russia 7.65
Mexico 3.61
Iran 3.54
China 3.37
Norway 3.33
Canada 2.94
Venezuela 2.91
United Kingdom 2.55
United Arab Emirates 2.38
Nigeria 2.12
Iraq 2.04
Kuwait 2.02
Posted by: Trihead

Re: inaguaration protestors - 02/03/05 09:47 AM

need some econ help here then. Why is it that when OPEC gets a hair up their collective ass and decide to cut production that gas prices will jump 10-20 cents per gallon? That is a hell of a hold on our economy wouldn't you agree? This is why we have an interest in the mid east.
Posted by: BurgPath

Re: inaguaration protestors - 02/03/05 10:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Trihead:
need some econ help here then. Why is it that when OPEC gets a hair up their collective ass and decide to cut production that gas prices will jump 10-20 cents per gallon? That is a hell of a hold on our economy wouldn't you agree? This is why we have an interest in the mid east.
Seems to me we arent talking to those guys in 'just the right way'. Surely they can do better, they just havent been encouraged enough. wink
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 02/03/05 10:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Trihead:
need some econ help here then. Why is it that when OPEC gets a hair up their collective ass and decide to cut production that gas prices will jump 10-20 cents per gallon? That is a hell of a hold on our economy wouldn't you agree? This is why we have an interest in the mid east.
Yeah, we do have interest in the middle east. And yeah, it's about oil.

But Venezuela is a member of OPEC. Hell, OPEC's previous leader was from Venezuela. Mexico is not a member, but wants to be, so when OPEC cuts rates, Mexico follows along, 'cause they hope that someday they'll be invited to join in, and they don't want to piss anybody off.

But OPEC only controls somewhere around 40% of the worlds oil production. Of the top 14 oil producing countries, Iraq ONLY produces 3.6% of the output. Venezuela kicks in 5.2%, and Mexico kicks in 6.4%.

So just think, if it were really about "cheaper oil", it would be far more beneficial to take over 11.6% of the top 14 producers, verses 3.6%.

I've always thought that we should be 1)pressuring Saudi Arabia more, and 2)pressuring the living daylights out of Mexico. It's embarrassing that we have to import so much oil from the middle east, when we have so much available in our own hemisphere, from countries that aren't run by militant psychos. But everybody gets so wrapped up w/ concern of OPEC, they don't realize how much is actually available right in our own backyard.

It's a classic magician's trick... Get the crowd looking one way, so they don't pay attention to what's really going on.
Posted by: Trihead

Re: inaguaration protestors - 02/03/05 10:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by porsche996:

I've always thought that we should be 1)pressuring Saudi Arabia more, and 2)pressuring the living daylights out of Mexico. It's embarrassing that we have to import so much oil from the middle east, when we have so much available in our own hemisphere, from countries that aren't run by militant psychos. But everybody gets so wrapped up w/ concern of OPEC, they don't realize how much is actually available right in our own backyard.

It's a classic magician's trick... Get the crowd looking one way, so they don't pay attention to what's really going on.[/QB]
I work for a gas LDC and have other interests in oil and gas so I do understand what you are talking about. Again to apply pressure to other countries we are messing in someone else's business. As we have seen they do not take kindly to our presence. Iraq was an opportunity.
Posted by: socalpunx

Re: inaguaration protestors - 02/03/05 10:51 AM

But why is it that we don't use our interest in oil as leverage when countries like Mexico and others in South America are lobbying for favored nation status, "drug war" money and funds channeled through loans and other programs.

It's disghusting that under the guise of promoting democracy we consistanly give and give and give but it seems so many times the recipients of our generosity are reluctant to return the hospitality.
Posted by: BurgPath

Re: inaguaration protestors - 02/03/05 12:12 PM

I think theres a reason we don't press local countries for oil. At some point, the middle east will dry up. ALL thats gonna be left will be within in easy reach of the US, not 1/2 way across the globe.

When the time comes to defend it, or take it, it will be easier to do, especially if its just south of us. smile
Posted by: Mobycat

Re: inaguaration protestors - 02/03/05 05:49 PM

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong..but this whole "Iraq doesn't produce much" isn't really an argument.

They may not produce the most, but other than Saudi Arabia, Iraq is sitting on the biggest reserve.

So technically speaking, when Venezuela and Mexico run out of oil, Iraq will still have tons to pump.

(And by the way...why the HELL was this thread brought back from the dead?)
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 03/03/05 12:22 PM

Sorry guys i was out in the pole barn revving up my custom "Chopper". I don't have time to go to the reference section and use the microfische machine and look up useless oil statistics. The mullet is growing out nicely right now it just looks like a rat tail, but given a couple of months i'll look like i'm from Louisville.

I'm almost half-way through my republican transformation. Just need to sign up for the Nascar DirectTV package. Is that a tax write off by the way?
Posted by: Trihead

Re: inaguaration protestors - 03/03/05 12:25 PM

LOL George I see you are from nothern Kentucky. Good luck with the mullet
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 06/03/05 09:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 2001frontier:
Whteva. The majority still voted for the best man. [Finger]

Wow a 51% majority! All those big fucking states don't add up to shit. That's like saying all 200 people in Wyoming voted for Bush so we'll color a state red to make it look more impressive. You should take a course in human geography, maybe you would then understand that it's about population DENSITY. Maybe if you got out of the trailer park more and no i'm not talking about Nascar races or Bush "book burnings".
Posted by: sdx

Re: inaguaration protestors - 06/03/05 09:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by gorge camper:
Wow a 51% majority! All those big fucking states don't add up to shit. That's like saying all 200 people in Wyoming voted for Bush so we'll color a state red to make it look more impressive. You should take a course in human geography, maybe you would then understand that it's about population DENSITY. Maybe if you got out of the trailer park more and no i'm not talking about Nascar races or Bush "book burnings".
Not to point out the obvious but ya, all ya need is 51% for a majority. Maybe you should take a course in American History, that map points out exactly why bush won. It's about the states with smaller population density having a say in who wins. Maybe you should try a trailer park out, seems like it would fit you. :rolleyes:
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 06/03/05 09:34 AM

Quote:
Wow a 51% majority! All those big fucking states don't add up to shit. That's like saying all 200 people in Wyoming voted for Bush so we'll color a state red to make it look more impressive. You should take a course in human geography, maybe you would then understand that it's about population DENSITY. Maybe if you got out of the trailer park more and no i'm not talking about Nascar races or Bush "book burnings".
You know, you should really convince the people in your own home city/county, that they don't "add up to shit".

Hamilton, Bulter, Warren, and Clermont Counties (aka, Cincinnati Metro Area) all went for Bush.

http://www.cincinnati.com/election2004/countybycounty.html

Quit whining and being a sore loser. The majority of people around you voted for Bush...

Heck, blast Louisville all you want, but this city went for Kerry...

Fucktard.
Posted by: Mobycat

Re: inaguaration protestors - 06/03/05 10:12 AM

Good God, you people are still arguing about the map?

Why don't we go smaller...let's go with just property owners.

I'm pretty sure Ted Turner voted for Kerry, so we should color a HUGE portion of Montana blue. He is the largest land owner there next to the government. (He's also the largest landowner in New Mexico...so color a big portion there blue, too.)

...shaking head...
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 06/03/05 10:15 AM

I've posted it before and I'll post it again:



Just let it go, folks.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 06/03/05 12:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by gorge camper:
Quote:
Originally posted by 2001frontier:
[b]Whteva. The majority still voted for the best man. [Finger]

Wow a 51% majority! All those big fucking states don't add up to shit. That's like saying all 200 people in Wyoming voted for Bush so we'll color a state red to make it look more impressive. You should take a course in human geography, maybe you would then understand that it's about population DENSITY. Maybe if you got out of the trailer park more and no i'm not talking about Nascar races or Bush "book burnings".[/b]
Check page 18 for some more relevant maps that I posted and 2001Frontier agreeing that his map (the one you quoted) shows "jack shit."
Posted by: sdx

Re: inaguaration protestors - 06/03/05 02:10 PM

“Extremism is so easy. You’ve got your position, and that’s it. It doesn’t take much thought. And when you go far enough to the right you meet the same idiots coming around from the left.”---Clint Eastwood, Time Magazine, February 28, 2005, pg 64. laugh
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 06/03/05 06:03 PM

Funny how where there's a larger mass of people voting, how it goes blue. How do you explain that?
Posted by: 2001frontier

Re: inaguaration protestors - 06/03/05 07:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by WilMac1023:
Funny how where there's a larger mass of people voting, how it goes blue. How do you explain that?
People in big cities are stupid, and the Dems got the minorities fooled. [Finger]
Posted by: Mobycat

Re: inaguaration protestors - 06/03/05 07:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 2001frontier:
Quote:
Originally posted by WilMac1023:
[b]Funny how where there's a larger mass of people voting, how it goes blue. How do you explain that?
People in big cities are stupid, and the Dems got the minorities fooled. [Finger] [/b]
This coming from someone who lives in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area.

[Finger] [Wave]
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 06/03/05 08:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 2001frontier:
People in big cities are stupid, and the Dems got the minorities fooled. [Finger]
Let's think about this:

Bush gets the blue-collar folks up in arms by being against gay marriage, by being against the rich elitists in the "big cities" with their "high-falootin'" ideas, education, and attitudes, and by getting the religious right on his side by promoting himself as anti-abortion.

So, what's the first thing he does after getting elected? Starts talking about privitizing social security, which was NEVER debated during the election. What does privitizing social security do? Well, it takes money out of YOUR pocket, and puts it into Wall Street...which basically means Joe Blue Collar is giving part of his paycheck right back to those rich elitists on Wall Street that Bush got Joe Blue Collar all pissed off about in the first place.

Those people in the red states, who you claim to be so much smarter than people living in cities, voted for a Wall Street wolf in Christian clothing.

Enjoy working until you're seventy. You voted for it.

Now, I'll ask you again. WHO is stupid?
Posted by: 2001frontier

Re: inaguaration protestors - 07/03/05 04:36 AM

That has to be the dumbest argument you have ever come up with. How exactly is putting my money into an account I control taking money out of my pocket?
Posted by: 2001frontier

Re: inaguaration protestors - 07/03/05 04:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Mobycat:
Quote:
Originally posted by 2001frontier:
[b]
Quote:
Originally posted by WilMac1023:
[b]Funny how where there's a larger mass of people voting, how it goes blue. How do you explain that?
People in big cities are stupid, and the Dems got the minorities fooled. [Finger] [/b]
This coming from someone who lives in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area.

[Finger] [Wave] [/b]
I live in the suburbs bitch! [Finger]
Posted by: MBFlyerfan

Re: inaguaration protestors - 07/03/05 04:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by WilMac1023:
Funny how where there's a larger mass of people voting, how it goes blue. How do you explain that?
Because whenever you get large groups of people together, they start to believe they can vote themselves all sorts of rights and priviledges. The democrats understand this and play to it. Its quite simple really, even for a socialist to understand. laugh
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 07/03/05 06:22 AM

It's amazing how some people are still arguing about the maps, and what they do, or do not show...

Look, Bush won the popular vote. He won the electoral college vote. That's 2 for 2. He didn't win on a plurality, he won a majority. If you don't like how the system works, too bad. If you don't like it that Bush won, too bad. If you're still arguing that "51% of the people were/are stupid", too bad. Look, it's over.

It's time to stop whining about the election, and move on. The simple fact is, Bush won a majority, he won the electoral college, and a little over 51% of the voters in this country want him in there. That's more than any other candidate, and that's just the way it is.
Posted by: Mobycat

Re: inaguaration protestors - 07/03/05 06:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by porsche996:
Bush won a majority, he won the electoral college, and a little over 51% of the voters in this country want him in there.
Technically speaking, that's incorrect. He didn't win 51% of the voters in this country. He won 51% of the participating voters.

But that's neither here nor there.

(I would argue the people who didn't vote at all are the stupid ones)
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 07/03/05 07:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Mobycat:
Quote:
Originally posted by porsche996:
[b]Bush won a majority, he won the electoral college, and a little over 51% of the voters in this country want him in there.
Technically speaking, that's incorrect. He didn't win 51% of the voters in this country. He won 51% of the participating voters.

But that's neither here nor there.

(I would argue the people who didn't vote at all are the stupid ones)[/b]
Just for the sake of arguement... The voters ARE the ones that actually voted. Thanks a lot to the driver's voters registration bill, many years ago, there's a helluva' lot of people that are registered voters, but who have not only never voted, but do not have any intentions of doing so. Those aren't voters; those are potential voters. And every citizen over the age of 18 in this country is a potential voter. Doesn't make them a voter, though.
Posted by: 2001frontier

Re: inaguaration protestors - 07/03/05 08:38 AM

I think he got you on that one Moby. You have to vote to be a voter. We would argue about the color of the sky if we got bored enough. laugh
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 07/03/05 08:42 AM

[Smoking]
(oh yeah...it's bluish-white..., but brown in the summertime...)
Posted by: Mobycat

Re: inaguaration protestors - 07/03/05 10:35 AM

Bullshit. When I looked up this morning, it was definitely all white. Slight orange tint on the horizon, though.
Posted by: Mobycat

Re: inaguaration protestors - 07/03/05 10:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 2001frontier:
I think he got you on that one Moby.
true...but what about those that voted but *didn't* vote for President?

(Yeah yeah...that's got to be miniscule...but still...you said we'd argue about anything. laugh )
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 07/03/05 12:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Mobycat:
Quote:
Originally posted by 2001frontier:
[b]I think he got you on that one Moby.
true...but what about those that voted but *didn't* vote for President?

(Yeah yeah...that's got to be miniscule...but still...you said we'd argue about anything. laugh )[/b]
Then those weren't voters in the Presidential election...

If you can't follow procedure (aka, directions), then should your half-attempt at a vote count? May as well have stayed at home and gotten more sleep...

[Spit]
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 07/03/05 02:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 2001frontier:
That has to be the dumbest argument you have ever come up with. How exactly is putting my money into an account I control taking money out of my pocket?
It's NOT your own personal account. That's where you're being snowballed. It's PRIVITIZING Social Security, not giving you your own account. That's the way they're making it sound, but it's not the way it is. Study a little bit more and then get back to me.
Posted by: 2001frontier

Re: inaguaration protestors - 07/03/05 02:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by WilMac1023:
Quote:
Originally posted by 2001frontier:
[b]That has to be the dumbest argument you have ever come up with. How exactly is putting my money into an account I control taking money out of my pocket?
It's NOT your own personal account. That's where you're being snowballed. It's PRIVITIZING Social Security, not giving you your own account. That's the way they're making it sound, but it's not the way it is. Study a little bit more and then get back to me.[/b]
That is total BS. Typical bullshit propoganda.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 07/03/05 02:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 2001frontier:
That is total BS. Typical bullshit propoganda.
Then prove it wrong, bitch. Or are you just spouting off like normal?
Posted by: 2001frontier

Re: inaguaration protestors - 07/03/05 02:33 PM

You made the claim, you prove it biatch!
Posted by: DocNo

Re: inaguaration protestors - 07/03/05 02:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Mobycat:
Technically speaking, that's incorrect. He didn't win 51% of the voters in this country. He won 51% of the participating voters.
I never did understand this parsing of "voter" - either you vote or you don't.

It is correct to say he won 51% of the voters and leave it at that. Period.

Now, this isn't directed at Mobycat but others in the thread:

If you didn't vote, then [Save the fine unicorns]

If you voted and it didn't go your way, get more people to vote your way next time and quit whining :rolleyes:
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 07/03/05 02:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DocNo:
Quote:
Originally posted by Mobycat:
[b]Technically speaking, that's incorrect. He didn't win 51% of the voters in this country. He won 51% of the participating voters.
I never did understand this parsing of "voter" - either you vote or you don't.

It is correct to say he won 51% of the voters and leave it at that. Period.

Now, this isn't directed at Mobycat but others in the thread:

If you didn't vote, then [Save the fine unicorns]

If you voted and it didn't go your way, get more people to vote your way next time and quit whining :rolleyes: [/b]
[ThumbsUp]
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 07/03/05 02:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 2001frontier:
You made the claim, you prove it biatch!
Try reading this you stupid motherfucker.

Here...I'll even quote for you, if clicking is too much of a chore:
Quote:
The road to prosperity, Wall Street has long maintained, is paved with investments in stocks. President Bush takes a similar position in urging private accounts as part of Social Security.

Who can argue?

Stocks have averaged an annual return of 6 percent above bond yields since the 1920s. No wonder roughly half the households in the United States have invested money in stocks, either directly or through a retirement account.

There's a catch, though. Stock markets don't hit the average each year. Performance runs in streaks: Many strong years can be followed by many lean ones. This repetitive pattern has mystified many market analysts. So young Americans, contemplating Mr. Bush's proposal to replace a portion of Social Security with an investment component, may have to factor in this market cycle, not just their age, when planning a retirement date.

Actually, all investors should perk up their ears if a 2003 paper by three economists is correct. Their forecast: Stocks for the next 15 years or so will be weak - returning maybe only a third of their historical average. The reason for this is even more surprising: demographics.
Posted by: Mobycat

Re: inaguaration protestors - 07/03/05 06:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DocNo:

Now, this isn't directed at Mobycat but others in the thread:

If you didn't vote, then [Save the fine unicorns]

If you voted and it didn't go your way, get more people to vote your way next time and quit whining :rolleyes:
Actually, I completely agree.
Posted by: 2001frontier

Re: inaguaration protestors - 08/03/05 05:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by WilMac1023:
Quote:
Originally posted by 2001frontier:
[b]You made the claim, you prove it biatch!
Try reading this you stupid motherfucker.

Here...I'll even quote for you, if clicking is too much of a chore:
Quote:
The road to prosperity, Wall Street has long maintained, is paved with investments in stocks. President Bush takes a similar position in urging private accounts as part of Social Security.

Who can argue?

Stocks have averaged an annual return of 6 percent above bond yields since the 1920s. No wonder roughly half the households in the United States have invested money in stocks, either directly or through a retirement account.

There's a catch, though. Stock markets don't hit the average each year. Performance runs in streaks: Many strong years can be followed by many lean ones. This repetitive pattern has mystified many market analysts. So young Americans, contemplating Mr. Bush's proposal to replace a portion of Social Security with an investment component, may have to factor in this market cycle, not just their age, when planning a retirement date.

Actually, all investors should perk up their ears if a 2003 paper by three economists is correct. Their forecast: Stocks for the next 15 years or so will be weak - returning maybe only a third of their historical average. The reason for this is even more surprising: demographics.
[/b]
Were does it say that we won't control the accounts dumbass? That was your claim. He is going to take your money and give it to wall street. Total bullshit. They are personal accounts, and yes the investments will be in private holdings. DUH! They would be an asset you could actually pass down to your children. As usual you are full of shit.

Edit: Holy Shit! The author found a paper by some guys that said the market is going to suck ass for 15 years! They couldn't be wrong! If the market takes a total shit, the rest of the the economy including government bonds will be screwed. Of course this fails to compensate for the real truth. There is no trust fund. Your money isn't sitting in some vault somewhere.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 08/03/05 06:45 AM

all this drama, and I'm not even involved?? Where's that little popcorn eating smiley when you need it...
Posted by: MBFlyerfan

Re: inaguaration protestors - 08/03/05 08:34 AM

You cant argue economics with a socialist. They are coming from a flawed concept of reality to begin with, so why bother?
Posted by: 2001frontier

Re: inaguaration protestors - 08/03/05 08:50 AM

That may be, but apparently he can't read either.

Quote:
It's NOT your own personal account. That's where you're being snowballed. It's PRIVITIZING Social Security, not giving you your own account. That's the way they're making it sound, but it's not the way it is. Study a little bit more and then get back to me.
Still waiting for the evidence on this one. :rolleyes:

They are going to have to come up with some real reasons soon. The other one I have heard floated is "You will lose a dollar from your SS for every one you put in a private account." That might sound alarming if you don't know any better. They try to make it sound like you are missing something. Of course the truth is the dollar is going into your account instead of SS. Even if the market does shitty for forty years you will make more on it than you would in SS.
Posted by: jerseydevi1

Re: inaguaration protestors - 08/03/05 09:05 AM

Dammit, there was a WilMac beatdown going on, and I missed it...shit.
Posted by: InfX708

Re: inaguaration protestors - 08/03/05 10:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by WilMac1023:
Quote:
Originally posted by 2001frontier:
[b]That has to be the dumbest argument you have ever come up with. How exactly is putting my money into an account I control taking money out of my pocket?
It's NOT your own personal account. That's where you're being snowballed. It's PRIVITIZING Social Security, not giving you your own account. That's the way they're making it sound, but it's not the way it is. Study a little bit more and then get back to me.[/b]
I think Social Security is the biggest scam the government has forced on us. You will never see all the money you pay into it.
Posted by: 2001frontier

Re: inaguaration protestors - 08/03/05 11:15 AM

We may see the money, but at what expense? The amount of taxes that will have to be collected to make up for the shortfall to come will be staggering.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 09/03/05 03:02 PM

All I know is i'm paying into social security for all you old motherfuckers. If they're going to start a fucking private account now, it's people in their twenties and thirties who get screwed. So unless all you "privitizing" butt pirates are close to retirement you will get fucked even with your "private" account.

Nobody can answer this question. What happens to all the money we've payed in allready? So people in their 20's and 30's have to start from scratch?
Posted by: Samueul

Re: inaguaration protestors - 09/03/05 07:58 PM

Social Security is bullshit either way.

I'd happily give up all the money I've ever put into it, if I could just stop paying into it completely from here on out. Let me manage that fucking money!
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 09/03/05 08:14 PM

I wish you could fully opt out of SS. The only way out of SS I see is to be in a union [ThumbsDown] with a pension fund or a public employee.

Anyone else know other ways?
Posted by: InfX708

Re: inaguaration protestors - 09/03/05 09:28 PM

I'm a public employee and I still pay social security. Like anyone in the government is gonna let the military get out of paying. They already want to take away our yearly pay raise.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 10/03/05 05:27 AM

I am a public employee and there is a public employees retirement fund (pension) and I don't pay SS taxes, but the amount I would have paid to SS goes to the pension fund.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 10/03/05 05:44 AM

every so often, the US Gov't will make it possible for certain groups to opt out of SS. Not sure when the last one was, but back in the 70s, my Dad got to opt out. He was/is a preacher, and they gave that option to all clergy (of any religion). He (obviously) jumped at that chance!

So he does not have to pay Social Security for any preaching-related work. He's also a college professor, so he does have to pay SS on that pay check. Every couple years, he gets a letter from the US Gov't. asking him if he wants back in to SS... Yeah, right... Obviously, he hasn't taken them up on their "offer"...

But as a response to the previous whiner, who thinks 20 and 30 yr. olds would be the ones who get screwed w/ a privatization account, I ask you to please wake up. This is the age demographic that stands to make the absolute most out of it. Look up some comparisons, man. Social Security earns a paltry 1% interest rate, tied to Treasury Bills. Heck, my paypal account earns a higher interest rate than that... In the absolute, worst case, long term scenario, the stock market would "only" increase by around 2% annually. Can you do math? That's double the rate of return.

And the best part is, if you feel the private accounts are too risky for you, YOU WON'T HAVE TO OPEN ONE!!! That's right. You'll have the luxery to just leave your Social Security funds sitting at a 1% interest rate, for the rest of your broke-ass life.

Personal accounts are only going to benefit those that use them. For those that don't, they can have the same shitty Social Security checks that we've all grown to love... Either way, if you're counting on this to fund your retirement, good luck to 'ya... That's not what SS was made for, and that's definately not what it is/can do.
Posted by: off2cjb

Re: inaguaration protestors - 10/03/05 06:45 AM



STOP THE INSANITY
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 10/03/05 12:04 PM

I would rather be safe than sorry. Social security is like insurance. Obviously you're going to need a 401k as well as other investments, i'm not arguing that social security interest bites.

My idea of retirement is not waiting till i'm 70 to retire because of market fluctuations. After 9/11 my friend's dad had to wait 3 years to retire.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 11/03/05 07:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by gorge camper:
I would rather be safe than sorry. Social security is like insurance. Obviously you're going to need a 401k as well as other investments, i'm not arguing that social security interest bites.

My idea of retirement is not waiting till i'm 70 to retire because of market fluctuations. After 9/11 my friend's dad had to wait 3 years to retire.
And you would have that ability, w/ the new system. The personal accounts are optional. If you feel it's too much of arisk, then you have the option to just leave your 12% social security tax alone. You don't have to divert 4% of that into an investment account if you don't want to.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 16/03/05 12:45 PM

anybody listen to GW this morning? what an idiot. he basically said that he doesnt really have a SS plan and that he plans on letting congress come up w/ plans because he wants it to be bi-partisan. what this basically means is that we wont have a plan - EVER.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 16/03/05 01:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Unda_Kuva:
anybody listen to GW this morning? what an idiot. he basically said that he doesnt really have a SS plan and that he plans on letting congress come up w/ plans because he wants it to be bi-partisan. what this basically means is that we wont have a plan - EVER.
Are you retarded?

GW has said he has a plan, but he wants congress' input/opinions, to make sure it's a bi-partisan effort. About the only thing that GW wants to be sure of, is that some form of personal accounts are in the final plan. Other than that, he's flexible.

If he came into it bull-headed, and said it's my way or the highway, then you'd be posting some dribble about how he doesn't want to cooperate w/ anyone, etc. You can't have it both ways. Make up your mind as to what you actually want in a President, then stick with it...

F*ing flip-floppers piss me off... Never come up with anything constructive; all you do is whine about what somebody else is doing. Guess what? At least that other person is doing something. What the hell are you doing?
Posted by: Lincoln

Re: inaguaration protestors - 16/03/05 04:55 PM

:rolleyes:

The President does have a plan, the left has no plan whatsoever! The President is inviting the looney left to get involved so we can fix this thing.

All the left does is complain about how things suck, but they never come up with a plan to make things better.

Bill Clinton wanted to introduce privatization into Social Security. The only reason the left is against this is because it is the Presidents plan.
Posted by: MBFlyerfan

Re: inaguaration protestors - 17/03/05 07:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln:
:rolleyes: .

Bill Clinton wanted to introduce privatization into Social Security. The only reason the left is against this is because it is the Presidents plan.
Exactly, but the difference is that most people are starting to realize this and seeing the left for what they really are.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 07:59 AM

Hey rednecks go watch some fucking Nascar you GW loving queers.
Posted by: 2001frontier

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 08:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by gorge camper:
Hey rednecks go watch some fucking Nascar you GW loving queers.
That was a well thought out argument.
Posted by: Lincoln

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 08:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by gorge camper:
Hey rednecks go watch some fucking Nascar you GW loving queers.
Your a fucking idiot. I hate Nascar jackass.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 08:35 AM

Do you conservatives (bible toting, self righteous, big business, redneck) ever watch the news? How about the whole Tom Delay scandal? Oh, let me rephrase the TRMPAC scandal. Not the FAA one where he had the FAA track down democrats in their planes which is ILLEGAL.

TRMPAC, was Delay's fundraising scheme where big business was able to donate directly into republican campaign contributions. (which is ILLEGAL). The money was then funneled into the republican headquarters in Washington and then dispersed to individuals in local elections. Thus resulting in an overwhelming amount of newly gained republican seats.
"By investing as much as $2.5 million in corporate money in the 2002 election, TRMPAC and another group, the Texas Association of Business, were able to help elect 26 new Republican candidates to the Texas House. The new Republican majority then redrew the congressional district boundaries and, as a result, five Democrats are likely to lose in the Nov. 2 election, according to political experts."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A43219-2004Jul11?language=printer

"Bush then said that he would use his traditional Thanksgiving pardon to free DeLay should he be indicted for political corruption charges in Texas, and then paraded the Texas congressman across the lawn to complete the festive holiday ceremony."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6567178/site/newsweek/
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 08:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln:
Quote:
Originally posted by gorge camper:
[b]Hey rednecks go watch some fucking Nascar you GW loving queers.
Your a fucking idiot. I hate Nascar jackass.[/b]
I believe you are referring to You're as in you are, not your as in possessive like i own something. JACKASS
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 08:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by gorge camper:
blah blah blah...
Yeah. And Slick Willy and Al Bore were financed illegally by the chinese. What's your fucking point? All politicians are crooked when it comes to money. Don't point a finger 'til your own party is freaking spotless. It's not. It's nowhere close.

Go watch your Michael Moore film and shut the hell up... You lost. Get over it.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 08:50 AM

Hey Porschefag992, why don't you take the cinder blocks from underneath the trailer and get a good spot at the Kentucky Speedway near LOUISVILLE. Make sure you get a good spot you wouldn't want to miss one of those lefthanded turns.
Posted by: jerseydevi1

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 09:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by gorge camper:
Hey Porschefag992, why don't you take the cinder blocks from underneath the trailer and get a good spot at the Kentucky Speedway near LOUISVILLE. Make sure you get a good spot you wouldn't want to miss one of those lefthanded turns.
This coming from a "liberal" mind. Aren't you supposed to be for equality for all? Or is your own bigot streak starting to show?

Be careful what you start, gorge, it WILL come back to you.

p.s. what does NASCAR have to do with anything? I was born in NYC and raised in northern NJ, where there is hardly any NASCAR, and I love it. What sport do you watch? The wanna be tough guys in the NBA who are too dumb to realize how ignorant they really are?
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 09:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by jerseydevi1:
p.s. what does NASCAR have to do with anything? I was born in NYC and raised in northern NJ, where there is hardly any NASCAR, and I love it. What sport do you watch? The wanna be tough guys in the NBA who are too dumb to realize how ignorant they really are?
You just did the exact same thing he did with a different sport.

I'm just sayin'...
Posted by: jerseydevi1

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 09:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by pnwbeers:
Quote:
Originally posted by jerseydevi1:
[b]p.s. what does NASCAR have to do with anything? I was born in NYC and raised in northern NJ, where there is hardly any NASCAR, and I love it. What sport do you watch? The wanna be tough guys in the NBA who are too dumb to realize how ignorant they really are?
You just did the exact same thing he did with a different sport.

I'm just sayin'...[/b]
I know it, I was trying to prove a point, and rather than attack him at this point, I figured I'd let him off easy with a little NBA bashing
laugh
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 09:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by gorge camper:
Do you conservatives (bible toting, self righteous, big business, redneck) ever watch the news?


Just stirring the pot, my friends... laugh
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 09:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by jerseydevi1:
Quote:
Originally posted by gorge camper:
[b]Hey Porschefag992, why don't you take the cinder blocks from underneath the trailer and get a good spot at the Kentucky Speedway near LOUISVILLE. Make sure you get a good spot you wouldn't want to miss one of those lefthanded turns.
This coming from a "liberal" mind. Aren't you supposed to be for equality for all? Or is your own bigot streak starting to show?

Be careful what you start, gorge, it WILL come back to you.

p.s. what does NASCAR have to do with anything? I was born in NYC and raised in northern NJ, where there is hardly any NASCAR, and I love it. What sport do you watch? The wanna be tough guys in the NBA who are too dumb to realize how ignorant they really are?[/b]
What the hell are you talking about? Are you going through hockey withdrawl? Go watch some figure skating.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 09:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by gorge camper:
Quote:
Originally posted by jerseydevi1:
[b]
Quote:
Originally posted by gorge camper:
[b]Hey Porschefag992, why don't you take the cinder blocks from underneath the trailer and get a good spot at the Kentucky Speedway near LOUISVILLE. Make sure you get a good spot you wouldn't want to miss one of those lefthanded turns.
This coming from a "liberal" mind. Aren't you supposed to be for equality for all? Or is your own bigot streak starting to show?

Be careful what you start, gorge, it WILL come back to you.

p.s. what does NASCAR have to do with anything? I was born in NYC and raised in northern NJ, where there is hardly any NASCAR, and I love it. What sport do you watch? The wanna be tough guys in the NBA who are too dumb to realize how ignorant they really are?[/b]
What the hell are you talking about? Are you going through hockey withdrawl? Go watch some figure skating.[/b]
Wow. You're like a broken record... SSDD... Same Shit, Different Day.

Tell you what. You seem to hate Louisville, and you seem to hate Kentucky. So next time you're at the Gorge (in Kentucky, dumbass), you go right ahead and start spouting your mouth. You're going to wish you heard was the theme track of deliverance. They won't fuck you, there. They'll just shoot you. Good luck with that.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 09:40 AM

Yeah good one Porschefag992. Excellent comeback.
Way to dodge the Tom Delay and anything Bush related with, Bill Clinton this and Bill Clinton that, and every politician does it. Why do you think i give you guys shit? If you will never admit mistakes and scandal in the republican party and deflect to, liberal this and liberal that, who sounds like the broken record biatch?

Brush it under the rug is the republican way, right Porschefag Limbaugh?
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 09:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by gorge camper:
Porschefag992
Hey gorge:

1 - that's not funny in the least

2 - it's 996, not 992

3 - it's derrogatory to homosexuals (which means you're either ignorant, a bigot, or some combination of the previous two).
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 09:51 AM

my appology beers, i will refer to him as porsche996homosexual.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 09:56 AM

The only reason it's offensive to conservatives is because they are anti-gay. They say they are anti gay marriage but come on they just don't want to give tax breaks to married gay couples. It would mean less money for bombs.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 10:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by gorge camper:
my appology beers, i will refer to him as porsche996homosexual.
You're still using it in a derogatory manner.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 10:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by gorge camper:
The only reason it's offensive to conservatives is because they are anti-gay. They say they are anti gay marriage but come on they just don't want to give tax breaks to married gay couples. It would mean less money for bombs.
you're obviously not married...

A married couple, in general, pay more taxes than two single people, if everything else were the same. It's nicknamed the "marraige penalty tax" for that very reason. Bush has lowered that, but it hasn't been eliminated. So by your own flawed thinking, if we allowed gay marraiges, we'd have more money for bombs...

Do you even have a job? Do you even pay taxes? Because you seem to know absolutely nothing of what you're talking.

It suxs that Delay turned out to be an asshole w/ the campaign financing. But what do you expect us to do about it? He's not my representative. I can't vote him out. And I'm sure as hell not going to go w/ the Dems, because overall, I identify w/ the Republican party the most. No, I don't like everything we do. But I like a helluva' lot more of the Rep's than the Dem's. It all comes down to money. I like to keep what I earn. Democrats would prefer I "give" my money to lazy assholes that don't make their own.

What I find as one of the funniest things is, Gorge sits and blasts Republicans. He blasts Nascar. He blasts gays. Dude, you live in Cincinnati. Jerry Springer is your former mayor. And yet you're so progressive, Larry Flynt can't even sell his magazine in Cincy.

Nevermind the question. You've definately answered it already. You are retarded. Which sucks, 'cause now I can't make fun of you anymore.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 10:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by gorge camper:
The only reason it's offensive to conservatives is because they are anti-gay.
What do you mean? That sentence literally makes no sense.

Quote:
They say they are anti gay marriage but come on they just don't want to give tax breaks to married gay couples. It would mean less money for bombs.
Some Republicans (and Democrats) are anti-gay marriage, but I don't think it has much to do with tax breaks. Rather, I think the bulk of those opposed to it are opposed on religious/moral grounds. I personally think the ban is blatently discriminatory and unconstitutional, but hey, that's for another thread.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 10:14 AM

"Whether a particular couple receives a marriage penalty or bonus (or neither) depends primarily on their division of income. Marriage penalties are more likely to occur if a couple's income is evenly divided between husband and wife. In contrast, marriage bonuses are more likely to occur if a couple's income is largely attributable to one spouse. For a given level of income, the largest penalties are generally paid by two-earner couples with a 50-50 income split, and the largest bonuses are received by one-earner couples (100-0 income split)."

It really all depends on how your income is divided.

Sorry about the sexual preference banter
Porsche996.

Sorry to change topics but who will you root for Kentucky or UC? In state rival or conference rival?
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 10:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by pnwbeers:
Quote:
Originally posted by gorge camper:
The only reason it's offensive to conservatives is because they are anti-gay.
What do you mean? That sentence literally makes no sense.

Rather, I think the bulk of those opposed to it are opposed on religious/moral grounds. I personally think the ban is blatently discriminatory and unconstitutional, but hey, that's for another thread.
You answered your own question.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 10:17 AM

I'm routing for UC. I can't stand UK. Don't like Cincy much, but they're in our conference, and C-USA has been bashed this whole past week about being too soft. Good thing our "bubble" team took out LSU. And if all goes well, Cincy will take out the pussycats, too.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 10:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by pnwbeers:
Quote:
Originally posted by gorge camper:
The only reason it's offensive to conservatives is because they are anti-gay.
What do you mean? That sentence literally makes no sense.

Quote:
They say they are anti gay marriage but come on they just don't want to give tax breaks to married gay couples. It would mean less money for bombs.
Some Republicans (and Democrats) are anti-gay marriage, but I don't think it has much to do with tax breaks. Rather, I think the bulk of those opposed to it are opposed on religious/moral grounds. I personally think the ban is blatently discriminatory and unconstitutional, but hey, that's for another thread.
I'm against gay marraige. I'm for Civil Unions. Why? Marraige is a religious ceremony, that happens to be afforded certain rights and priveledges under law. I believe in seperation of church and state. I don't see why the same rights and priveledges can't be granted to gay couples. Marraige is religious. Civil Unions aren't. That gets around the whole "belief" issue, and makes it a law/rights issue.

No matter what my beliefs are, there's going to be people and laws in this country that don't follow those beliefs. It's not my place to enforce my beliefs on others.

But when it comes to the law, it should be equally applied for everybody, all religion aside.

But that's my opinion.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 10:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by porsche996:
I'm routing for UC. I can't stand UK. Don't like Cincy much, but they're in our conference, and C-USA has been bashed this whole past week about being too soft. Good thing our "bubble" team took out LSU. And if all goes well, Cincy will take out the pussycats, too.
Last year for C-USA we both need to prove we belong in the Big East. Go Cats and Cards!
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 10:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by gorge camper:
Quote:
Originally posted by porsche996:
[b]I'm routing for UC. I can't stand UK. Don't like Cincy much, but they're in our conference, and C-USA has been bashed this whole past week about being too soft. Good thing our "bubble" team took out LSU. And if all goes well, Cincy will take out the pussycats, too.
Last year for C-USA we both need to prove we belong in the Big East. Go Cats and Cards![/b]
UofL has already proved it... We're ranked higher than any school in the Big East, in both Football and Basketball...

UC's got something to prove... 'Cause we whipped their ass in everything this year [Finger]
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 10:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by porsche996

But when it comes to the law, it should be equally applied for everybody, all religion aside.

But that's my opinion.[/QB]
Agreed, but much of the voters did not agree though.

In cincinnati they ran a very confusing campaign this election. The conservative side presented it as special rights and brought a great civil rights movement leader Fred Shuttlesworth saying it was unneccesary and would give gays less rights. The prorights side said it was equal rights under the law. Who are you going to believe, a great civil rights leader or some random lady? I was duped, had no idea until the day after the election what each side actually stood for.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 10:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by porsche996:
I'm against gay marraige. I'm for Civil Unions. Why? Marraige is a religious ceremony, that happens to be afforded certain rights and priveledges under law. I believe in seperation of church and state. I don't see why the same rights and priveledges can't be granted to gay couples. Marraige is religious. Civil Unions aren't. That gets around the whole "belief" issue, and makes it a law/rights issue.
Sounds like that "separate but equal" crap to me.

I see it as a very simple issue, completely unrelated to religion. The government recognizes an agreement between two consenting adults and confers a set of rights and responsibilities on that couple. An atheist couple can be join that institution free of any religious connotations. Why can't a same-sex couple?

It's a clear equal protection violation.
Posted by: Lincoln

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 10:39 AM

What the fuck are you trying to do Jorge Camper? Do you enjoy sitting at your computer and trying to start shit?

We don't need fucktard trolls like you around, I doubt you will be around here much longer anyway.

Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 10:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by gorge camper:
Quote:
Originally posted by porsche996

But when it comes to the law, it should be equally applied for everybody, all religion aside.

But that's my opinion.
Agreed, but much of the voters did not agree though.

In cincinnati they ran a very confusing campaign this election. The conservative side presented it as special rights and brought a great civil rights movement leader Fred Shuttlesworth saying it was unneccesary and would give gays less rights. The prorights side said it was equal rights under the law. Who are you going to believe, a great civil rights leader or some random lady? I was duped, had no idea until the day after the election what each side actually stood for.[/QB]
Common tactic. "We aren't saying they should have lessor rights, just no special rights." On that basis certain rights are taken away that are not taken away from heterosexual couples. Equal rights?

Nope - veiled discrimination.
Posted by: 2001frontier

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 10:44 AM

They still have the right to marry. Any man can marry any woman. That is were the special rights come in.

Gorge it doesn't suprise me that you were 'duped', judging from your posts that would be a very easy thing to do.
Posted by: 2001frontier

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 10:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by gorge camper:
Do you conservatives (bible toting, self righteous, big business, redneck) ever watch the news? How about the whole Tom Delay scandal? Oh, let me rephrase the TRMPAC scandal. Not the FAA one where he had the FAA track down democrats in their planes which is ILLEGAL.

TRMPAC, was Delay's fundraising scheme where big business was able to donate directly into republican campaign contributions. (which is ILLEGAL). The money was then funneled into the republican headquarters in Washington and then dispersed to individuals in local elections. Thus resulting in an overwhelming amount of newly gained republican seats.
"By investing as much as $2.5 million in corporate money in the 2002 election, TRMPAC and another group, the Texas Association of Business, were able to help elect 26 new Republican candidates to the Texas House. The new Republican majority then redrew the congressional district boundaries and, as a result, five Democrats are likely to lose in the Nov. 2 election, according to political experts."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A43219-2004Jul11?language=printer

"Bush then said that he would use his traditional Thanksgiving pardon to free DeLay should he be indicted for political corruption charges in Texas, and then paraded the Texas congressman across the lawn to complete the festive holiday ceremony."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6567178/site/newsweek/
Holy shit! Absolutely nothing has come of this! What a shock. Sounds like much of it was bullshit to me! Actually he was never charged with a damn thing.

The redistricting in Texas was actually fair. That is why the Dems hauled ass out of the state instead of actually letting democracy happen. Stop talking about things you know nothing about.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 11:00 AM

Good job Frontier i'm glad you can read. You did know this was an Xterra forum didn't you?
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 11:04 AM

Gorge it doesn't suprise me that you were 'duped', judging from your posts that would be a very easy thing to do.[/QB][/QUOTE]

Judging from your posts it seems you live vicariously through other Xterra owners. It also looks like you don't have a life. Nothing of valid info just conversing about NFL blindside hits all day.
Posted by: jerseydevi1

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 11:14 AM

Hey Jorge, or gorge, I can't figure out all that mexican shit, guess I'm just a dumb redneck in your eyes, buy you have some set on you. You love to talk about gays and gay rights, let me ask you a few questions. Are you gay? Do you have any children? what moral code do you follow? Where in the Fucking Constitution does it say anything about marriage at all? It doesn't, there was not even a consideration of gays or gay marriage when it was written. This should be a state issue, not a federal one, and if the people of the state say that marriage is between a man and a woman, so be it. The purpose of the constitution was to limit the federal government, not expand it. It should not be treated as a catch-all for every nut-job out there. The whole Supreme Court is a joke now. Interpret the constitution like you are supposed to, and stop making laws.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 11:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by jerseydevi1:
Hey Jorge, or gorge, I can't figure out all that mexican shit
Whoa... I think it's "Gorge Camper", as in "Red River Gorge", an extremely popular hiking/camping/biking/offroading location in Kentucky... Otherwise nicknamed, "Grand Canyon of the East". I could be wrong, but I'm fairly sure that's what it's for; anyone from this area refers to this place as "The Gorge".

Anyways, back to our regularly scheduled love fest...
Posted by: 2001frontier

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 11:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by gorge camper:
Gorge it doesn't suprise me that you were 'duped', judging from your posts that would be a very easy thing to do.
Judging from your posts it seems you live vicariously through other Xterra owners. It also looks like you don't have a life. Nothing of valid info just conversing about NFL blindside hits all day.[/QB][/QUOTE]

Quite funny. I have known many on this site for over four years. I wheel with lots of them. I almost bought an Xterra, but decided the bed on the Frontier would be more useful. The GF is trying to decide between a Ford SuperDuty, a Titan, and an '05 Xterra right now, so no I don't envy any of you in the least bit. Nice try though.

I really like how you totally ignored my rebuttle to your lame attempt at smearing Tom Delay though. Quite typical for inept people such as yourself.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 11:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by jerseydevi1:
Hey Jorge, or gorge, I can't figure out all that mexican shit, guess I'm just a dumb redneck in your eyes, buy you have some set on you. You love to talk about gays and gay rights, let me ask you a few questions. Are you gay? Do you have any children? what moral code do you follow? Where in the Fucking Constitution does it say anything about marriage at all? It doesn't, there was not even a consideration of gays or gay marriage when it was written. This should be a state issue, not a federal one, and if the people of the state say that marriage is between a man and a woman, so be it. The purpose of the constitution was to limit the federal government, not expand it. It should not be treated as a catch-all for every nut-job out there. The whole Supreme Court is a joke now. Interpret the constitution like you are supposed to, and stop making laws.
You are right about the constitution. It also doesn't mention anything about abortion either. The constituion cop out has been used almost as much as the bible cop out. Judicial law is based on case law which has been around for hundreds of years in England. Case law creates about 50% of laws. It's the whole balance of power thing, equal scales of justice.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 11:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by jerseydevi1:
Hey Jorge, or gorge, I can't figure out all that mexican shit, guess I'm just a dumb redneck in your eyes, buy you have some set on you. You love to talk about gays and gay rights, let me ask you a few questions. Are you gay? Do you have any children? what moral code do you follow? Where in the Fucking Constitution does it say anything about marriage at all? It doesn't, there was not even a consideration of gays or gay marriage when it was written. This should be a state issue, not a federal one, and if the people of the state say that marriage is between a man and a woman, so be it. The purpose of the constitution was to limit the federal government, not expand it. It should not be treated as a catch-all for every nut-job out there. The whole Supreme Court is a joke now. Interpret the constitution like you are supposed to, and stop making laws.
http://img59.exs.cx/img59/7836/dcp00223ji.jpg

Not Jorge, Gorge like canyon.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 11:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 2001frontier:
They still have the right to marry. Any man can marry any woman. That is were the special rights come in.
Equal rights aren't special rights.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 12:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by jerseydevi1:
Interpret the constitution like you are supposed to, and stop making laws.
How do you think it should be interpreted?
Posted by: 2001frontier

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 12:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pnwbeers:
Quote:
Originally posted by 2001frontier:
[b]They still have the right to marry. Any man can marry any woman. That is were the special rights come in.
Equal rights aren't special rights.[/b]
The special rights would be allowing them to marry the same sex. They already can marry the opposite sex like everyone else.
Posted by: jerseydevi1

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 12:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pnwbeers:
Quote:
Originally posted by jerseydevi1:
[b]Interpret the constitution like you are supposed to, and stop making laws.
How do you think it should be interpreted?[/b]
I don't know, I'm not a supreme court justice. It has been may years since my last real class on this, but my memory says that they are supposed to judge based on the constitution as written, not create laws through judgements because of thier own beliefs.
Posted by: jerseydevi1

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 12:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by porsche996:
Quote:
Originally posted by jerseydevi1:
[b]Hey Jorge, or gorge, I can't figure out all that mexican shit
Whoa... I think it's "Gorge Camper", as in "Red River Gorge", an extremely popular hiking/camping/biking/offroading location in Kentucky... Otherwise nicknamed, "Grand Canyon of the East". I could be wrong, but I'm fairly sure that's what it's for; anyone from this area refers to this place as "The Gorge".

Anyways, back to our regularly scheduled love fest...[/b]
I didn't realize...ok, but I guess I was trying to replicate the whole redneck, bible thumper smear.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 12:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 2001frontier:
Quote:
Originally posted by pnwbeers:
[b]
Quote:
Originally posted by 2001frontier:
[b]They still have the right to marry. Any man can marry any woman. That is were the special rights come in.
Equal rights aren't special rights.[/b]
The special rights would be allowing them to marry the same sex. They already can marry the opposite sex like everyone else.[/b]
Well that's a twisted way to look at it. :rolleyes:
Posted by: jerseydevi1

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 12:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pnwbeers:
Quote:
Originally posted by 2001frontier:
[b]
Quote:
Originally posted by pnwbeers:
[b]
quote:
Originally posted by 2001frontier:
They still have the right to marry. Any man can marry any woman. That is were the special rights come in.
Equal rights aren't special rights.[/b]
The special rights would be allowing them to marry the same sex. They already can marry the opposite sex like everyone else.[/b]
Well that's a twisted way to look at it. :rolleyes:
That is interesting, but I have heard worse.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 12:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by jerseydevi1:
Quote:
Originally posted by pnwbeers:
[b]
Quote:
Originally posted by jerseydevi1:
[b]Interpret the constitution like you are supposed to, and stop making laws.
How do you think it should be interpreted?[/b]
I don't know, I'm not a supreme court justice. It has been may years since my last real class on this, but my memory says that they are supposed to judge based on the constitution as written, not create laws through judgements because of thier own beliefs.[/b]
Judges aren't supposed to create laws based on their own beliefs, and by in large they don't (they can't, quite frankly). The constitution wasn't ever intended to be read literally - it's a constitution, not a statute. The framer's intentionally created a document that could be organic and change with time.

It doesn't say anything about electronic surveillance devices that can see thru walls (stuff like thermal imaging), but the constitution has been intepreted to prevent abuse of those devices.

I admit that substantive due process is quite an intellectual leap, but the equal protection clause in this context (gay marriage) is not.
Posted by: 2001frontier

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 12:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pnwbeers:
Quote:
Originally posted by 2001frontier:
[b]
Quote:
Originally posted by pnwbeers:
[b]
quote:
Originally posted by 2001frontier:
They still have the right to marry. Any man can marry any woman. That is were the special rights come in.
Equal rights aren't special rights.[/b]
The special rights would be allowing them to marry the same sex. They already can marry the opposite sex like everyone else.[/b]
Well that's a twisted way to look at it. :rolleyes:
Bwahahahahahahahah! Just repeating the argument.

I have no problem with gay marriage whatsoever. [Finger]
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 01:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by porsche996:
I'm against gay marraige. I'm for Civil Unions. Why? Marraige is a religious ceremony, that happens to be afforded certain rights and priveledges under law. I believe in seperation of church and state. I don't see why the same rights and priveledges can't be granted to gay couples. Marraige is religious. Civil Unions aren't. That gets around the whole "belief" issue, and makes it a law/rights issue.
If marriage is religious, then tell me why a heterosexual couple can go to city hall and get a marriage license, AND be married by a Justice of the Peace? If they're married in a church or in city hall, in the end, they're still married. What if the couple is Atheist - are they not married? As tough as this may be to accept, not everyone believes in God. The whole "marriage is a religious ceremony" is a bullshit excuse that is getting really fucking tiresome.
Posted by: 2001frontier

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 02:06 PM

[Crybaby] [Crybaby] [Crybaby]
Posted by: jerseydevi1

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 02:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Digityzed:
Quote:
Originally posted by porsche996:
[b]I'm against gay marraige. I'm for Civil Unions. Why? Marraige is a religious ceremony, that happens to be afforded certain rights and priveledges under law. I believe in seperation of church and state. I don't see why the same rights and priveledges can't be granted to gay couples. Marraige is religious. Civil Unions aren't. That gets around the whole "belief" issue, and makes it a law/rights issue.
If marriage is religious, then tell me why a heterosexual couple can go to city hall and get a marriage license, AND be married by a Justice of the Peace? If they're married in a church or in city hall, in the end, they're still married. What if the couple is Atheist - are they not married? As tough as this may be to accept, not everyone believes in God. The whole "marriage is a religious ceremony" is a bullshit excuse that is getting really fucking tiresome.[/b]
Ok, how about this one. I don't believe that gay marriage is the same, and if it ever came to a vote, I would vote against it since it is against my belief system. I have as much right to my opinion and what I want my kids exposed to as the gay couple does, and my family and I don't believe they can form a family in the traditional sense that we believe in.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 02:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Digityzed:
If marriage is religious, then tell me why a heterosexual couple can go to city hall and get a marriage license, AND be married by a Justice of the Peace? If they're married in a church or in city hall, in the end, they're still [b]married. What if the couple is Atheist - are they not married? As tough as this may be to accept, not everyone believes in God. The whole "marriage is a religious ceremony" is a bullshit excuse that is getting really fucking tiresome.[/b]
Quote:
Originally posted by jerseydevi1:
Ok, how about this one. [b]I don't believe that gay marriage is the same, and if it ever came to a vote, I would vote against it since it is against my belief system. I have as much right to my opinion and what I want my kids exposed to as the gay couple does, and my family and I don't believe they can form a family in the traditional sense that we believe in.[/b]
Seriously, why do you care so much about what other families, gay or straight, are up to in their private lives? (I'm just wondering.) Because, it's really none of anyone else's business. As long as they're raising the kids in a loving home, what's the difference if they're gay or straight? The kids aren't going to "catch it".

Also, could you elaborate on why you don't think gay marriage is the same...aside from the obvious that it's between partners of the same sex?
Posted by: 2001frontier

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 02:38 PM

Like I said I have no real problem with gay marriage, and I know gay couples that are raising kids. I will say that all things being equal having a mother and father raising children is superior to two mothers or two fathers.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/03/05 03:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by jerseydevi1:
Ok, how about this one. [b]I don't believe that gay marriage is the same, and if it ever came to a vote, I would vote against it since it is against my belief system. I have as much right to my opinion and what I want my kids exposed to as the gay couple does, and my family and I don't believe they can form a family in the traditional sense that we believe in.[/b]
So you think it's ok to impose your belief system in such a way as to discriminate against others?

Even today some people don't believe in bi-racial marriage, and while they have the right to beleive as they do, do they get to impose that belief system on others? What's the difference?
Posted by: InfX708

Re: inaguaration protestors - 20/03/05 12:30 PM

I want someone to explain to me why the whole issue deserves a Constitutional Ammendment. Look at all the other Ammendments - they cover issues that have a direct affect on a major portion of the U.S. population. Why is this issue at the federal level? No other question of this nature is at the federal level, with exception of those pertaining to federal troops. Both age of consent for marriage and age of consent for sex are decided at the state level. Before we go adding to the document, let's take a look at what is already there - check the 10th ammendment. Any citizen that exercises a right granted by a state that allows any action, be it gay marriage or concealed carry of firearms, has that particular action recognized by every state in the union under Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution. That's why you are able to drive in any state on you license.
Posted by: 2001frontier

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/03/05 06:29 AM

That is why they want an ammendment. They don't want other states being forced to recognize gay marriages.
Posted by: jerseydevi1

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/03/05 06:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by pnwbeers:
[QUOTE]So you think it's ok to impose your belief system in such a way as to discriminate against others?

Even today some people don't believe in bi-racial marriage, and while they have the right to beleive as they do, do they get to impose that belief system on others? What's the difference?
The difference is bi-racial is still man-woman. I am no more trying to force my opinion on the gays than they are forcing thiers on me. Do you have children? Have you ever had to answer a 10-year old when they ask you what does gay mean? I don't believe my children need to be exposed to that. It is not in the belief system that my family and religion teach and believe, and I am entitled to that belief as much as anyone else. If you don't agree, good for you, that is why we vote on things in this country, so we can disagree and sort things out without violence.

I do not go to anti-gay marriage rallies, I do not write the bills for proposed laws, but I will vote on the bill if it gets presented to me, and I will live by whatever the outcome.

That my friend is what the first amendment is for, so I can speak my mind even though you disagree, not just so the people who agree with you can speak.
Posted by: jerseydevi1

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/03/05 06:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Digityzed:
Quote:
Originally posted by Digityzed:
[b]If marriage is religious, then tell me why a heterosexual couple can go to city hall and get a marriage license, AND be married by a Justice of the Peace? If they're married in a church or in city hall, in the end, they're still [b]married. What if the couple is Atheist - are they not married? As tough as this may be to accept, not everyone believes in God. The whole "marriage is a religious ceremony" is a bullshit excuse that is getting really fucking tiresome.[/b]
Quote:
Originally posted by jerseydevi1:
Ok, how about this one. [b]I don't believe that gay marriage is the same, and if it ever came to a vote, I would vote against it since it is against my belief system. I have as much right to my opinion and what I want my kids exposed to as the gay couple does, and my family and I don't believe they can form a family in the traditional sense that we believe in.[/b]
Seriously, why do you care so much about what other families, gay or straight, are up to in their private lives? (I'm just wondering.) Because, it's really none of anyone else's business. As long as they're raising the kids in a loving home, what's the difference if they're gay or straight? The kids aren't going to "catch it".

Also, could you elaborate on why you don't think gay marriage is the same...aside from the obvious that it's between partners of the same sex?[/b]
You are kidding , right? You cannot throw out the same sex issue, otherwise there is no issue. My family and I don't believe that a man and a man can be the same as a man and a woman. period. That is what our belief system is, and that is what we would vote on.

I'm sorry I don't agree with you, but I won't be bullied into changing the belief system that I have held all my life, regardless of how many times you all on the left act all angry and call me and people who share my views names. Personally, I'm a little tired of the whole if it feels good, do it attitude. I feel that is what is getting this country into trouble, and I'm glad to see a trend in the other direction.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/03/05 08:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by jerseydevi1:
The difference is bi-racial is still man-woman.
So what? It was considered just as wrong as man-man or woman-woman in the past...

Quote:
I am no more trying to force my opinion on the gays than they are forcing thiers on me.
How wanting the same rights that you enjoy forcing an opinion on you?

Quote:

Do you have children?
Not yet, but my wife is starting to get more and more anxious. I'm not sure how much longer I can hold out. [Uh Oh !]

Quote:
Have you ever had to answer a 10-year old when they ask you what does gay mean?
Happy. laugh

Quote:
I don't believe my children need to be exposed to that. It is not in the belief system that my family and religion teach and believe, and I am entitled to that belief as much as anyone else.
Thats just fine to hold those beliefs yourself - you have that right without question. But you don't have the right to deny others a constitutional right. You know the old saying that your rights only extend until they start to infringe on the rights of others? That applies here.

Quote:
If you don't agree, good for you, that is why we vote on things in this country, so we can disagree and sort things out without violence.
We shouldn't be voting on constitutional rights. We'll see if the constitution actually gets amended - I personally doubt it will happen, but it's possible.

Quote:

I do not go to anti-gay marriage rallies, I do not write the bills for proposed laws, but I will vote on the bill if it gets presented to me, and I will live by whatever the outcome.
I'm glad you don't go to those rallies. Actually the rallies put on by both sides tend to be attended by some strange folks.

Quote:
That my friend is what the first amendment is for, so I can speak my mind even though you disagree, not just so the people who agree with you can speak.
This isn't a first amendment issue at all - I've already agreed with you that you have an absolute right to believe as you do and teach your children accordingly. This is a equal protection issue, and quite a clear violation of that clause. Because that's in the federal constitution, the state constitutions and laws passed by the states (as well as any Federal law) are not controlling.
Posted by: jerseydevi1

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/03/05 09:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by pnwbeers:
Because that's in the federal constitution, the state constitutions and laws passed by the states (as well as any Federal law) are not controlling.
By certain states allowing it and other not, it has already been forced on states that vote against it. I believe it was 2001Frontier that said it earlier, it's like driving through or in another state with my VA license, all states acknowledge each others licenses, as well as acknowledge each other's marriages. So, if Virginia votes against allowing it, but Massachusetts allows it, the gay couple that moves here is still considered married, and now my family has to deal with it, even though our state law does not recognize it. Just my opinion. Like I said, if I ever get to vote on it, my concience, and what I believe is right for my family and I dictate that I must vote against it. If the vote goes the other way, I will live with it as I do with other laws I disagree with. That is the difference between myself and those on the left. I admit when I lose, and live with it.

As far as your comments on what to tell my kids, and the fact that you don't have any yet, I'd like to see how your opinion changes as you and your children get older. I know mine did.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/03/05 09:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by jerseydevi1:
You [b]are kidding , right? You cannot throw out the same sex issue, otherwise there is no issue. My family and I don't believe that a man and a man can be the same as a man and a woman. period. That is what our belief system is, and that is what we would vote on.[/b]
No, I wasn't kidding. And, you're statement doesn't answer the question of WHY you don't feel that gay marriage is the same - you're merely re-affirming your stance. The question is why do you feel that way? If you're going to have such a strong belief about something, at least have a reason for it other than, "That is what our belief system is, and that is what we would vote on." I'm just saying.

Quote:
Originally posted by jerseydevi1:
I'm sorry I don't agree with you, but I won't be bullied into changing the belief system that I have held all my life, regardless of how many times you all on the left act all angry and call me and people who share my views names.
Who's bullying you into changing your beliefs? I'm not saying, "No, I think it's wrong. You should think the way I think!" I'm merely asking why you feel that way. You're entitled to your opinion, just as I am. But, I feel having a constitutional ammendment which would prevent a group of people (myself included) from being legally married, is discrimination.

Quote:
Originally posted by jerseydevi1:
Personally, I'm a little tired of the whole if it feels good, do it attitude. I feel that is what is getting this country into trouble, and I'm glad to see a trend in the other direction.
If you think the "if it feels good do it" mantra is what homosexuals live their lives by, then you need to get to know a homosexual person a little better before you judge.
Posted by: jerseydevi1

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/03/05 09:35 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by pnwbeers:
But you don't have the right to deny others a constitutional right. You know the old saying that your rights only extend until they start to infringe on the rights of others? That applies here.

We shouldn't be voting on constitutional rights.

Silly question. This is for anybody really, regardless as to which side of the issue you come down on. Please show me where a person has a constitutional right to marriage, or a civil union, for that matter. I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm seriously curious.
Posted by: Trihead

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/03/05 09:37 AM

Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness?
Posted by: jerseydevi1

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/03/05 09:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Digityzed:
But, I feel having a constitutional ammendment which would prevent a group of people (myself included) from being legally married, is discrimination.
I was wondering if there was someone here who could give us that perspective. Thank you for saying so Digityzed, I have a better understanding of your point of view.

Quote:
Originally posted by Digityzed:
If you think the "if it feels good do it" mantra is what homosexuals live their lives by, then you need to get to know a homosexual person a little better before you judge.
I actually knew quite a few gays here that my wife used to work with, and actually, thier mantra was just that. We used to talk to them and hang out with them before we realized we had a moral dilemma with thier lifestyle, and promiscuity, and how we could justify it in our hearts and minds when we were trying to teach our children differently. So, you see, my opinion comes from my experience with the gay people that I have met and gotten to know.
Posted by: jerseydevi1

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/03/05 09:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Trihead:
Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness?
Thanks, Trihead, but where is the word marriage? For anybody, gay, straight or otherwise?
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/03/05 09:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by jerseydevi1:
Silly question. This is for anybody really, regardless as to which side of the issue you come down on. Please show me where a person has a constitutional right to marriage, or a civil union, for that matter. I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm seriously curious.
Here's a good layman's write-up on equal protection.

Quote:

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights.

Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in activity yet denies other individuals the same right. There is no clear rule for deciding when a classification is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has dictated the application of different tests depending on the type of classification and its effect on fundamental rights. Traditionally, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose." The Supreme Court, however, has applied more stringent analysis in certain cases. It will "strictly scrutinize" a distinction when it embodies a "suspect classification." In order for a classification to be subject to strict scrutiny, it must be shown that the state law or its administration is meant to discriminate. Usually, if a purpose to discriminate is found the classification will be strictly scrutinized if it is based on race, national origin, or, in some situations, non U.S. citizenship (the suspect classes). In order for a classification to be found permissible under this test it must be proven, by the state, that there is a compelling interest to the law and that the classification is necessary to further that interest. The Court will also apply a strict scrutiny test if the classification interferes with fundamental rights such as first amendment rights, the right to privacy, or the right to travel. The Supreme Court also requires states to show more than a rational basis (though it does not apply the strictly scrutiny test) for classifications based on gender or a child's status as illegitimate.

The 14th amendment is not by its terms applicable to the federal government. Actions by the federal government, however, that classify individuals in a discriminatory manner will, under similar circumstances, violate the due process of the fifth amendment.
While there's no mention of the right to marry in the constitution, the government is offering that right to heterosexual couples but not homosexual couples. They key is whether that is justified - and I think that there is no legit reason, so not extending the same rights to homosexual couiples is an equal protection violation.

PS - here's the link to the text I quoted above: http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/equal_protection.html
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/03/05 09:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by jerseydevi1:
Quote:
Originally posted by Digityzed:
[b]If you think the "if it feels good do it" mantra is what homosexuals live their lives by, then you need to get to know a homosexual person a little better before you judge.
I actually knew quite a few gays here that my wife used to work with, and actually, thier mantra was just that. We used to talk to them and hang out with them before we realized we had a moral dilemma with thier lifestyle, and promiscuity, and how we could justify it in our hearts and minds when we were trying to teach our children differently. So, you see, my opinion comes from my experience with the gay people that I have met and gotten to know.[/b]
If that's been your experience, and you're grouping an entire group of people in with that, that's pretty sad, but there's not much I can do about it. Just know that homosexuals aren't the exclusive group to that mantra.

What if one of your children comes out to you later in life? I hope you'll support them, and not dump them to the wayside as you did your friends.
Posted by: jerseydevi1

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/03/05 10:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Digityzed:
Quote:
Originally posted by jerseydevi1:
[b]
Quote:
Originally posted by Digityzed:
[b]If you think the "if it feels good do it" mantra is what homosexuals live their lives by, then you need to get to know a homosexual person a little better before you judge.
I actually knew quite a few gays here that my wife used to work with, and actually, thier mantra was just that. We used to talk to them and hang out with them before we realized we had a moral dilemma with thier lifestyle, and promiscuity, and how we could justify it in our hearts and minds when we were trying to teach our children differently. So, you see, my opinion comes from my experience with the gay people that I have met and gotten to know.[/b]
If that's been your experience, and you're grouping an entire group of people in with that, that's pretty sad, but there's not much I can do about it. Just know that homosexuals aren't the exclusive group to that mantra.

What if one of your children comes out to you later in life? I hope you'll support them, and not dump them to the wayside as you did your friends.[/b]
Digityzed, thank you. I understand that each group has it's "bad eggs" and that the people we knew might have been some of them. And you are right, to lump and entire group together is dangerous. However, I can only go by my personal experience and value system.

As to the point of my children, I love them with all of my being, and would never turn them out for any reason. My family the reason I go to work every day, and the reason I wake up in the morning.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/03/05 10:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by jerseydevi1:
As to the point of my children, I love them with all of my being, and would never turn them out for any reason. My family the reason I go to work every day, and the reason I wake up in the morning.
As much as we (obviously) don't see eye-to-eye on many things, I admire this statement.

Who's got a tissue? wink
Posted by: 2001frontier

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/03/05 10:16 AM

Quote:
While there's no mention of the right to marry in the constitution, the government is offering that right to heterosexual couples but not homosexual couples. They key is whether that is justified - and I think that there is no legit reason, so not extending the same rights to homosexual couiples is an equal protection violation.
Would you say the same thing for those that want to have more than two people in a marriage? How about consenting siblings that want to marry?
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/03/05 10:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 2001frontier:
Quote:
While there's no mention of the right to marry in the constitution, the government is offering that right to heterosexual couples but not homosexual couples. They key is whether that is justified - and I think that there is no legit reason, so not extending the same rights to homosexual couiples is an equal protection violation.
Would you say the same thing for those that want to have more than two people in a marriage? How about consenting siblings that want to marry?
A slippery slope argument? You and Thomas think alike... :rolleyes: Do you actually find such arguments compelling?

And I thought you weren't against same-sex marriage...is the truth slipping out?

In any event, the answer to your question lies in the text I quoted above.
Posted by: jerseydevi1

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/03/05 10:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Digityzed:
Quote:
Originally posted by jerseydevi1:
[b]As to the point of my children, I love them with all of my being, and would never turn them out for any reason. My family the reason I go to work every day, and the reason I wake up in the morning.
As much as we (obviously) don't see eye-to-eye on many things, I admire this statement.

Who's got a tissue? wink [/b]
Just don't let this go too far, I have a rep as an asshole to protect.
laugh
Posted by: 2001frontier

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/03/05 10:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by pnwbeers:
Quote:
Originally posted by 2001frontier:
[b]
Quote:
While there's no mention of the right to marry in the constitution, the government is offering that right to heterosexual couples but not homosexual couples. They key is whether that is justified - and I think that there is no legit reason, so not extending the same rights to homosexual couiples is an equal protection violation.
Would you say the same thing for those that want to have more than two people in a marriage? How about consenting siblings that want to marry?
A slippery slope argument? You and Thomas think alike... :rolleyes: Do you actually find such arguments compelling?

And I thought you weren't against same-sex marriage...is the truth slipping out?

In any event, the answer to your question lies in the text I quoted above.[/b]
No, not a slippery slope argument at all. I think these things would have to be made legal as well if gay marriage was.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/03/05 11:12 AM

Umm, that's exactly what a "slippery slope" arguement is.. An arguement that's based on, "if this happens, then this will, then this, then this, then..."

It's like the arguement people used in KY this past november. We passed a "ban" on gay marraige this past November. A lot of people said they voted for it because, "If they make gay marraige legal, then we'd see gays walking down the street kissing...". Bullshit. I can already go to where the gays hang out in this city, and see people walking down the street kissing...

Not to mention, we 1)already had a ban against gay marraige, 2)we NEVER had any push to "legalize" gay marraige, and 3)the constitutional amendment in our state went WAY too far in its wording. I voted against the amendment for those 3 reasons.

Some legal genius got our amendment to restrict "marraige-like" rights to ANYONE that is not married, and made it illegal for gay marraige. Unfortunately, some of those "marraige-like" benefits would include un-wed couples... For instance, a guy knocks up a chick. The chick goes is in the hospital; the guy is no longer legally allowed to visit her. Why? Because they're not married. He could visit the baby, because he would be the father. But technically, he's not allowed to visit the mother. Now how assinine is that?
Posted by: 2001frontier

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/03/05 11:27 AM

It is very asinine. I was just saying that if you are willing to have gay marriages, you should be willing to have the others. Why shouldn't you allow the others?
Posted by: InfX708

Re: inaguaration protestors - 22/03/05 04:12 PM

Doesn't KY allow common-law "marriages"? As it was explained to me, this is when a couple live together and present the image that they are married.
After speaking with a friend who is rather knowledgable of the Constitution and ammendment process, I don't think we have to worry about an ammendment coming anyway, as heated as this arguement is. I believe the last ammendment to the Constituion took around 200 years to pass. MI was the hold out. Don't quote those figures exactly - My memory sucks lately and he's an IU Hoosier.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 23/03/05 06:11 AM

I'm fairly certain we still have "common-law" marraiges in KY, but I don't know how many years you have to be living together for it to go in effect. I believe it is 8 years, but I honestly don't know why I'm thinking that. It could be an even 10 years, or as few as 5.

Like I said; our constitutional amendment was not worded correctly, and now we have an extremely stupid law in the books, that is going to take a helluva' wake-up call for the state, to get it fixed. I don't know that it will ever be corrected, as the majority of the people in this state are not, how do you say, smart...

The thing that bothers me the most about ANY of these state "laws" or "amendments", is that the majority of people don't bother to read the whole thing, before they vote. They don't bother to think about what it actually says, or how it could be interpreted. I'm a firm believer in keeping the laws to a minimum. Other than a few places in the country, giving gays a "right" to get married hasn't even been considered. So why do ordinary people feel that all the sudden, they're going to be forced to allow it?? And to listen to the proponents of these assinine laws screaming, "The GAYS are coming! The GAYS are coming!", is just plain annoying!!! Look, the gay population is LESS THAN 1% of the population in the country. Yet for some strange reason, that's a majority of the topics of conversation, in the political world right now. Why in hell are we even talking about 1%??? Isn't there a helluva' lot more important things to talk about?
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 14/04/05 10:14 AM

My husband is in the military and I am happy to see so many Bush supporters around here! For those of you who have said "End this war and bring our boys home." Speaking from experience, I want to let you know that you are not "Supporting Our Troops". Yes its a dirty job but nobody can deny that somebody has to do it. The Democrats act like "Our Troops" were forced to go to war, you forget each and every one of our troops and lets not forget their families CHOSE this way of life and most of us are quite happy with our lives. Yes its hard but who's life isn't?

I feel this way because I was in the third grade during Desert Storm and the war frightened me very much (mostly because the only war stories I had heard were from my Dad in Vietnam, no worries they were very sensored.) I honestly felt very thankful that our troops were taking care of that situation so when I grew up, my friends would not have to worry about the middle east...Well, here we are again...and now I am grown up. We pulled out of there once and look where that landed us. Why exactly should we go that rout again? Besides as the most "well off" country I believe it is our duty to help free those who can't free themselves.

Thank you, I'll get off my soap box now. wink
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 14/04/05 12:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SuperBlackXterra:
Yes its hard, but who's life isn't?
This guy's:
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 14/04/05 12:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by WilMac1023:
Quote:
Originally posted by SuperBlackXterra:
[b]Yes its hard, but who's life isn't?
This guy's:
[/b]
Right... I'm sure it's not stressful or hard at all to be a President....

Maybe in your own little mind, wilmac... Gotta' be easy to rule in that lala land; doesn't appear to be anything there.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: inaguaration protestors - 18/04/05 09:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by porsche996:
Quote:
Originally posted by WilMac1023:
[b]
Quote:
Originally posted by SuperBlackXterra:
[b]Yes its hard, but who's life isn't?
This guy's:
[/b]
Right... I'm sure it's not stressful or hard at all to be a President....

Maybe in your own little mind, wilmac... Gotta' be easy to rule in that lala land; doesn't appear to be anything there.[/b]
You are wasting your time porsche996. Wilmac is a moron who would argue with a 5 year old if the opportunity arose.