[quote]Laugh if you want. It is a free world for some, for those that enjoy this freedom laugh if you wish or don't. Freedom..... I believe the Bush admin. is doing the right things for the right reasons that when viewed in terms of the long-term context outweigh what could happen if the admin did less than it is doing. If some think the situation the world is in is funny they are free to laugh. I would suggest that things are far more serious than to simply laugh at tactics the Bush admin. does or does not employ. For those who focus on mocking the admin. I would say you are distracted away from very serious events in our modern day. <hr></blockquote>
are you suggesting giving this administration be given carte blanche and rubber stamp approval on all its foreign policy?
that's exactly the way fascism begins.
face it, the administration chose iraq as a distraction from the war on terror, which was stagnating. they know iraq would be easy pickings and they need something swell to run on for their second term. the problem is they didn't get all their ducks in a row, with regards to our allies. (you remember allies? like the pakistanis who captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? the biggest victory in our war on terror.)
it's like the <a href="http://www.doonesbury.ucomics.com/strip/dailydose/index.cfm?uc_full_date=20030302&uc_comic=db&uc_dac tion=X" target="_blank">doonesbury</a> in sundays paper.....the economy is floundering.....before his first term is over president bush may have us wrapped up in three (3!) wars.....the country is the most divided it's been since viet nam.....but thank god we have a president who can keep his penis in his pants.
we don't have leadership, we have cowboys playing russian roulette, and we are facing a credibility problem world wide.
[quote]Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook:
Laugh if you want. It is a free world for some, for those that enjoy this freedom laugh if you wish or don't. Freedom..... I believe the Bush admin. is doing the right things for the right reasons that when viewed in terms of the long-term context outweigh what could happen if the admin did less than it is doing. If some think the situation the world is in is funny they are free to laugh. I would suggest that things are far more serious than to simply laugh at tactics the Bush admin. does or does not employ. For those who focus on mocking the admin. I would say you are distracted away from very serious events in our modern day.
Fellowship
<hr></blockquote>
I'm laughing at the suggestion that our current government is fighting for our freedom, especially in light of their domestic actions subverting the core of our freedom, the Bill of Rights.
Sometimes, those of us who notice what is happening to our country, have to laugh to keep from crying....
You have zero understanding on how our government works. Post back when you finish high-school government class.
"that's exactly the way fascism begins" <hr></blockquote>
Fascism begins when the executive branch grabs more power than it should have, upsetting the system of "checks and balances" that the Founding Fathers put into place with the 3 branches of government, specifically to avoid such developments.
Hopefully that rings a bell from YOUR high-school government class.... <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
Of course, Fascism's advancement requires the wimpering submission of "Members" of Congress (of both parties) who are afraid of not getting reelected due to appearing "unpatriotic" for not fully supporting our new pre-emptive strike version of foreign policy....
[quote]Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar:
<strong>
are you suggesting giving this administration be given carte blanche and rubber stamp approval on all its foreign policy?
that's exactly the way fascism begins. <hr></blockquote></strong>
No administration will survive a bad move. If the "moves" are just and success is the result of the "moves" then it was all worth it. If the motives of an administration are for all the wrong reasons then that admin will fail politically. I view the choices of the Bush admin as needed in this day at this time. I want those who hate us to be kept from hurting us. Some think we can somehow get them to "like us" I live in the real world and that does not fly. Hence my support of the Bush admin. as I also commend Tony Blair of the UK. He is not doing it for popularity in his country. It is called leadership. For what reasons? the wrong ones? or the right ones? I say in MHO the right ones.
[quote]<strong>
face it, the administration chose iraq as a distraction from the war on terror, which was stagnating.<hr></blockquote></strong>
BS that is false. You again live in your world that is far from the reality of the justification of why we, the UK and Arab neighbors want Saddam to go. This has nothing to do with distractions. Get a clue.
[quote]<strong>
we don't have leadership, we have cowboys playing russian roulette, and we are facing a credibility problem world wide.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you are a rude asshole to make such a statement. You are free to say what you said. I am free to say what I just said.
I don't disrespect who you are but I take issue with your misguided rhetoric.
[quote]Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook:
<strong>I want those who hate us to be kept from hurting us. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Someone's got a nice quote by Ben Franklin about giving up your freedom for 'safety'. WHere is that?
Either way, the conservatives around here are scared of the big bad world and this is a great example of that. It's so amazing to me that I work with people who actually believe that 'most' of the Arab world hats us and want to kill us. They actually believe it's more than 1%. More than .001%.
Don't be afraid of democracy everyone. It's for your own good.
<strong>We were a laughing stock to the world when we were hung up on Clinton's Chief Staff for four years but now this is worse.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hey, I liked Clinton. I could really relate to the guy. I didn't totally approve of him, but like, I feel like if he weren't President and we worked together, we'd get along all right. Clinton was the President that felt like your best friend... just your sleazy best friend of was getting it under his office desk.
But hey, it was all cool. Presidents can be human too.
Of course, I don't want to believe that W Bush is human. They can't even hide their agendas well. I mean, we know they want to invade Iraq... but all the evidence they whip out about Iraq's non-compliance is laughable. Iraq begins destroying missiles, seconds later white house says it is just another game. They're DESTROYING WEAPONS and it is still a game? Come on, people...
This seems to address what people are talking about here. It might be a bit OT but I am going to post it anyhow.
[quote]AMERICAN DISASTERS......
A little political review,
a time to think & remember...
From a Navy man...
After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000;
President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel;
Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel;
Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000;
Clinton promised that those responsible! would be hunted down and punished.
After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors;
Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
Maybe if Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 3,000 people in New York and Washington, D.C. that are now dead would be alive today.
AN INTERESTING QUESTION:
This question was raised on a Philly radio call-in show.
Without casting stones, it is a legitimate question.
There are two men, both extremely wealthy.
One develops relatively cheap software and gives billions of
dollars to charity. The other sponsors terrorism.
That being the case, why was it that the Clinton Administration spent more money chasing down Bill Gates over the past eight years than Osama bin Laden?
THINK ABOUT IT!
It is a strange turn of events.
Hillary gets $8 Million for her forthcoming memoir.
Bill gets about $12 Million for his memoir yet to be written.
This from two people who have spent the past 8 years being unable to recall anything about past events while under oath!
Yeah, if we had clinton back N. Korea wouldn't be a problem. Remember they told him they had no nukes and he believed him. No problem! Iraq wouldn't be a problem either. If it served his purpose he would invade Iraq to get Saddam with the full support of all left wing liberals. If it didn't serve his purpose, he'd leave Iraq alone while it continued to build up it's arsenal. But Saddam would tell him he has no arsenal so, again, no problem! Oh how I long for a weak, poll-driven democrat to "care" all our problems away. That would be so much better than someone who has the courage to do what should be done and the conviction not to be swayed by polls and self-serving countries worried about their economic ties to dictatorships.
Oh, and if I hear another hypocritical liberal bring up the Founding Fathers or the Constitution I might just puke. There is no greater threat to the Constitution of The United States than radical liberalism.
<strong>This seems to address what people are talking about here. It might be a bit OT but I am going to post it anyhow.</strong><hr></blockquote>I just want to point out a couple things:
1. We did get those directly responsible for those acts listed in most, if not all cases.
2. If the test is getting bin Laden, Bush hasn't done that either, despite a much, much worse act of terror against us than ever before.
3. Clinton did bomb bin Laden in Afghanistan and was roundly criticized for it.
4. 9/11 did occur under Bush's watch, and IMO he tried to cover up any possible responsibility members of his administration might have had in missing it, until information was revealed against their will.
5. The Bill Gates analogy is a silly but perfect example of a false dilemma. And it's not at all clear that more money was spent chasing Gates than bin Laden. Even those couple dozen missiles sent to Sudan and Afghanistan probably covered it.
<strong>Oh, and if I hear another hypocritical liberal bring up the Founding Fathers or the Constitution I might just puke. There is no greater threat to the Constitution of The United States than radical liberalism.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because it's the liberals in power trying to take away my personal freedoms, right?
I could support the war in Iraq if they actually came out and said: 'Saddam Hussein is bad. He's oppressing the Iraqi people, we need to take him out.' But all I'm hearing is 'They have missiles, we don't believe they aren't destroying them, let's go bomb them because of this.' The humanitarian concern, which should be the A-level concern, is not discussed at all.
<strong>But all I'm hearing is 'They have missiles, we don't believe they aren't destroying them, let's go bomb them because of this.' The humanitarian concern, which should be the A-level concern, is not discussed at all.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Listen to Tony Blair. The Bush case just isn't being presented as well.
re: the Gates/Bin Laden thing: it's like when people here say "why is Apple protecting its patents and copyrights when they should be making faster hardware?" The answer is that they're completely independednt, that one has nothing to do with the other. You don't just put more monkies on typewriters to get the great American novel.
If the humanitarian aspect was in the center the "coalisitions" concerns then the means would reflect the end they were pursuing. Then everything would be tried to achieve the same goal without starting a war. And that is not the case right now.
The time is on our side as long as the pressure is on Saddam. Lets use it to try to avoid war.
Comments
<strong>
That's a tough job, I think. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Not if you tell the truth.
are you suggesting giving this administration be given carte blanche and rubber stamp approval on all its foreign policy?
that's exactly the way fascism begins.
face it, the administration chose iraq as a distraction from the war on terror, which was stagnating. they know iraq would be easy pickings and they need something swell to run on for their second term. the problem is they didn't get all their ducks in a row, with regards to our allies. (you remember allies? like the pakistanis who captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? the biggest victory in our war on terror.)
it's like the <a href="http://www.doonesbury.ucomics.com/strip/dailydose/index.cfm?uc_full_date=20030302&uc_comic=db&uc_dac tion=X" target="_blank">doonesbury</a> in sundays paper.....the economy is floundering.....before his first term is over president bush may have us wrapped up in three (3!) wars.....the country is the most divided it's been since viet nam.....but thank god we have a president who can keep his penis in his pants.
we don't have leadership, we have cowboys playing russian roulette, and we are facing a credibility problem world wide.
<strong>
are you suggesting giving this administration be given carte blanche and rubber stamp approval on all its foreign policy?
that's exactly the way fascism begins.
...</strong><hr></blockquote>
You have zero understanding on how our government works. Post back when you finish high-school government class.
"that's exactly the way fascism begins" <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>
Not if you tell the truth.</strong><hr></blockquote>
ESPECIALLY if you tell the truth
Laugh if you want. It is a free world for some, for those that enjoy this freedom laugh if you wish or don't. Freedom..... I believe the Bush admin. is doing the right things for the right reasons that when viewed in terms of the long-term context outweigh what could happen if the admin did less than it is doing. If some think the situation the world is in is funny they are free to laugh. I would suggest that things are far more serious than to simply laugh at tactics the Bush admin. does or does not employ. For those who focus on mocking the admin. I would say you are distracted away from very serious events in our modern day.
Fellowship
<hr></blockquote>
I'm laughing at the suggestion that our current government is fighting for our freedom, especially in light of their domestic actions subverting the core of our freedom, the Bill of Rights.
Sometimes, those of us who notice what is happening to our country, have to laugh to keep from crying....
You have zero understanding on how our government works. Post back when you finish high-school government class.
"that's exactly the way fascism begins"
Fascism begins when the executive branch grabs more power than it should have, upsetting the system of "checks and balances" that the Founding Fathers put into place with the 3 branches of government, specifically to avoid such developments.
Hopefully that rings a bell from YOUR high-school government class.... <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
Of course, Fascism's advancement requires the wimpering submission of "Members" of Congress (of both parties) who are afraid of not getting reelected due to appearing "unpatriotic" for not fully supporting our new pre-emptive strike version of foreign policy....
<strong>
are you suggesting giving this administration be given carte blanche and rubber stamp approval on all its foreign policy?
that's exactly the way fascism begins. <hr></blockquote></strong>
No administration will survive a bad move. If the "moves" are just and success is the result of the "moves" then it was all worth it. If the motives of an administration are for all the wrong reasons then that admin will fail politically. I view the choices of the Bush admin as needed in this day at this time. I want those who hate us to be kept from hurting us. Some think we can somehow get them to "like us" I live in the real world and that does not fly. Hence my support of the Bush admin. as I also commend Tony Blair of the UK. He is not doing it for popularity in his country. It is called leadership. For what reasons? the wrong ones? or the right ones? I say in MHO the right ones.
[quote]<strong>
face it, the administration chose iraq as a distraction from the war on terror, which was stagnating.<hr></blockquote></strong>
BS that is false. You again live in your world that is far from the reality of the justification of why we, the UK and Arab neighbors want Saddam to go. This has nothing to do with distractions. Get a clue.
[quote]<strong>
we don't have leadership, we have cowboys playing russian roulette, and we are facing a credibility problem world wide.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you are a rude asshole to make such a statement. You are free to say what you said. I am free to say what I just said.
I don't disrespect who you are but I take issue with your misguided rhetoric.
Fellowship
[ 03-05-2003: Message edited by: FellowshipChurch iBook ]</p>
[quote] ESPECIALLY if you tell the truth<hr></blockquote>
See? It's a tough job!
<strong>I want those who hate us to be kept from hurting us. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Someone's got a nice quote by Ben Franklin about giving up your freedom for 'safety'. WHere is that?
Either way, the conservatives around here are scared of the big bad world and this is a great example of that. It's so amazing to me that I work with people who actually believe that 'most' of the Arab world hats us and want to kill us. They actually believe it's more than 1%. More than .001%.
Don't be afraid of democracy everyone. It's for your own good.
and the answer comes, "I think you are a rude asshole to make such a statement."
Then you KNOW we're in trouble. Dude, you ARE facing a credibility problem world wide.
That's called a "fact."
<strong>When someone says "We don't have leadership, we have cowboys playing russian roulette, and we are facing a credibility problem world wide."
and the answer comes, "I think you are a rude asshole to make such a statement."
Then you KNOW we're in trouble. Dude, you ARE facing a credibility problem world wide.
That's called a "fact."</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yea that's always a clear sign of trouble
You know some's full of it when they start threatening fascism.
but fellowship and scott want to put me up against the wall.
do i get last smoke fellows?
if so i'd like a fine cohiba hand rolled by my comrades in cuba, or are they your comrades? it's getting kind of hard to tell.
<strong>We were a laughing stock to the world when we were hung up on Clinton's Chief Staff for four years but now this is worse.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hey, I liked Clinton. I could really relate to the guy. I didn't totally approve of him, but like, I feel like if he weren't President and we worked together, we'd get along all right. Clinton was the President that felt like your best friend... just your sleazy best friend of was getting it under his office desk.
But hey, it was all cool. Presidents can be human too.
Of course, I don't want to believe that W Bush is human. They can't even hide their agendas well. I mean, we know they want to invade Iraq... but all the evidence they whip out about Iraq's non-compliance is laughable. Iraq begins destroying missiles, seconds later white house says it is just another game. They're DESTROYING WEAPONS and it is still a game? Come on, people...
I really wish we had Clinton back
[quote]AMERICAN DISASTERS......
A little political review,
a time to think & remember...
From a Navy man...
After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000;
President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel;
Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel;
Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000;
Clinton promised that those responsible! would be hunted down and punished.
After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors;
Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
Maybe if Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 3,000 people in New York and Washington, D.C. that are now dead would be alive today.
AN INTERESTING QUESTION:
This question was raised on a Philly radio call-in show.
Without casting stones, it is a legitimate question.
There are two men, both extremely wealthy.
One develops relatively cheap software and gives billions of
dollars to charity. The other sponsors terrorism.
That being the case, why was it that the Clinton Administration spent more money chasing down Bill Gates over the past eight years than Osama bin Laden?
THINK ABOUT IT!
It is a strange turn of events.
Hillary gets $8 Million for her forthcoming memoir.
Bill gets about $12 Million for his memoir yet to be written.
This from two people who have spent the past 8 years being unable to recall anything about past events while under oath!
Sincerely,
Cmdr Hamilton McWhorter
USN(ret)
Remember:
The Alamo
Pearl Harbor
9-11-01
The Clinton Years
All Truly American Disasters!!!<hr></blockquote>
Oh, and if I hear another hypocritical liberal bring up the Founding Fathers or the Constitution I might just puke. There is no greater threat to the Constitution of The United States than radical liberalism.
<strong>This seems to address what people are talking about here. It might be a bit OT but I am going to post it anyhow.</strong><hr></blockquote>I just want to point out a couple things:
1. We did get those directly responsible for those acts listed in most, if not all cases.
2. If the test is getting bin Laden, Bush hasn't done that either, despite a much, much worse act of terror against us than ever before.
3. Clinton did bomb bin Laden in Afghanistan and was roundly criticized for it.
4. 9/11 did occur under Bush's watch, and IMO he tried to cover up any possible responsibility members of his administration might have had in missing it, until information was revealed against their will.
5. The Bill Gates analogy is a silly but perfect example of a false dilemma. And it's not at all clear that more money was spent chasing Gates than bin Laden. Even those couple dozen missiles sent to Sudan and Afghanistan probably covered it.
<strong>Oh, and if I hear another hypocritical liberal bring up the Founding Fathers or the Constitution I might just puke. There is no greater threat to the Constitution of The United States than radical liberalism.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because it's the liberals in power trying to take away my personal freedoms, right?
I could support the war in Iraq if they actually came out and said: 'Saddam Hussein is bad. He's oppressing the Iraqi people, we need to take him out.' But all I'm hearing is 'They have missiles, we don't believe they aren't destroying them, let's go bomb them because of this.' The humanitarian concern, which should be the A-level concern, is not discussed at all.
<strong>But all I'm hearing is 'They have missiles, we don't believe they aren't destroying them, let's go bomb them because of this.' The humanitarian concern, which should be the A-level concern, is not discussed at all.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Listen to Tony Blair. The Bush case just isn't being presented as well.
re: the Gates/Bin Laden thing: it's like when people here say "why is Apple protecting its patents and copyrights when they should be making faster hardware?" The answer is that they're completely independednt, that one has nothing to do with the other. You don't just put more monkies on typewriters to get the great American novel.
[ 03-06-2003: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
The time is on our side as long as the pressure is on Saddam. Lets use it to try to avoid war.
You don't really believe that letter, do you?