Badmovies.org Forum

Other Topics => Off Topic Discussion => Topic started by: lester1/2jr on May 16, 2008, 08:14:22 AM



Title: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: lester1/2jr on May 16, 2008, 08:14:22 AM
"Now, I'm off to Saudi Arabia, the home of Wahabi Islam, the bin laden family, the burqua,  and #1  international funding for scary madrassas" - our commander in chief.

(http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index_files/saudi-women-outraged.jpg)


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: Raffine on May 16, 2008, 11:09:22 AM
BUSH: "C'mon Abdullah! Ya gotta give us lotsa more oil! Ain't we BFF?"
KING ABDULLAH: "Stick it, Dubya."

 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24660754/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24660754/)


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: Captain Tars Tarkas on May 16, 2008, 02:13:05 PM
For the record, I am against giving terrorists peas.  I would like to give them my broccoli, because, BLEAH!


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: lester1/2jr on May 16, 2008, 02:48:14 PM
I lost 2 karma points.


sorry, i didn't realize there were a plurality of saudi arabians on this board.

raffine-  oil just shot up like a dollar


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: Raffine on May 16, 2008, 03:06:48 PM
I think I'm losing Karma as well.  It's part of the vast right wing conspiracy! :bouncegiggle:

Speaking of Our President - that was some speech he gave about how some people (wink wink!) are like them durty Nazi appeasers and how they'd, uh, appease them Nazis!
 
Maybe somebody should remind him about  his PawPaw Prescott Bush (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar).


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: AndyC on May 16, 2008, 03:25:16 PM
I lost 2 karma points.


sorry, i didn't realize there were a plurality of saudi arabians on this board.

raffine-  oil just shot up like a dollar

Sure it isn't just your avatar? That kid from Small Wonder sure p**ses me off.  :teddyr:


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: lester1/2jr on May 16, 2008, 04:59:24 PM
what?  it was a sick show.  I saw one where the older boys starting chewing tobacco and a week later one of them got mouth cancer


Title: I Refute Lester Thus:
Post by: Riprake on May 16, 2008, 07:30:34 PM
(http://lonestartimes.com/images/2007/12/rp-and-db.jpg) (http://lonestartimes.com/2007/12/20/&h=375&w=500&sz=197&hl=fr&start=16&um=1&tbnid=3eta6t4w1p-OrM:&tbnh=98&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%252B%2B%2522Ron%2BPaul%2522%2B%252B%2B%2522Don%2BBlack%2522%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dfr%26sa%3DN)
(http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/051223/051223_osama_vmed_11a.widec.jpg) (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10587661/)
(http://www.tizacademy.com/images/TiZA_School.jpg) (http://www.startribune.com/16404541.html)
(http://edweb.sdsu.edu/wip/examples/gas2/OilPricesFirstBorn.jpg) (http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080515172437.aspx)
(http://www.spminiatures.com/mulblackpotoval.jpg)
+
(http://www.condar.com/graphics/kettleblacksilver.jpg) (http://www.reason.com/news/show/126020.html)
=
(http://stormfront.org/dblack/images/abc_don.jpg) (http://stormfront.org/dblack/)


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: Menard on May 16, 2008, 07:46:04 PM
Actually, Riprake, it should be 'thusly'; as its use in the sentence is as an adverb.


Ahem...

Getting back on subject...

Uh...

What the hell is the subject? :question:

Is this one of those open threads where you can post about anything you want?

Okay...

Ah like lesbians.

AndyC, in another thread, admitted to liking dogs.

Draw your own conclusions.(http://zhorkow.com/smileys/lol-065.gif)


(Just funnin' ya Andy :tongueout:)


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: AnubisVonMojo on May 16, 2008, 08:22:48 PM
Has Riprake posted here as a guest before? I don't remember the name, but then I'm bad with names. It just strikes me as odd that someone who's a guest would immediately hit up a political thread on a bad movie website. Given that nobody's laid claim to Lester or Raffine's decreased karma points, [Sherlock]I think a Bushie reg may be voicing their opinion via disguise so as to avoid liberal backlash[/Sherlock].

Then again, I'm no Bill Peterson. :tongueout:


Title: "She's fantastic! Made of plastic!"
Post by: Raffine on May 16, 2008, 09:16:22 PM
Sure it isn't just your avatar? That kid from Small Wonder sure p**ses me off.  :teddyr:


Ha! I've got my own horror story about Small Wonder. I spent a summer back in the 80's commuting along rural Alabama backroads and the only thing the radio would pick up was a TV station out of Birmingham - which I swear aired Small Wonder on a never-ending loop. 


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cs8X_7X6uc


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: lester1/2jr on May 17, 2008, 08:30:03 AM
riprake- okay.  so you are saying that ron paul accepting money froma racist guy is the same as george bush begging the saudis for lower oil prices?  or something?

that was a lot of work for a very poor analogy. 


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: Menard on May 17, 2008, 10:56:24 AM
riprake- okay.  so you are saying that ron paul accepting money froma racist guy is the same as george bush begging the saudis for lower oil prices?  or something?

that was a lot of work for a very poor analogy. 

What the hell do you mean 'begging'?

That worthless son of a b***h is as much entwined in the oil price hike as anybody.

Don't forget the analogies to strange bedfellows, supported terrorism, and the pot calling the kettle black. Although it seems like the intent was to be Pro-Bush (a.k.a. having your head up your ass), it oddly resembles Bush even more.


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: Allhallowsday on May 17, 2008, 11:19:33 AM
Has Riprake posted here as a guest before? I don't remember the name, but then I'm bad with names. It just strikes me as odd that someone who's a guest would immediately hit up a political thread on a bad movie website. Given that nobody's laid claim to Lester or Raffine's decreased karma points, [Sherlock]I think a Bushie reg may be voicing their opinion via disguise so as to avoid liberal backlash[/Sherlock].
Perhaps, but then they wouldn't be able to knock karma...


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: AnubisVonMojo on May 17, 2008, 12:05:48 PM
Has Riprake posted here as a guest before? I don't remember the name, but then I'm bad with names. It just strikes me as odd that someone who's a guest would immediately hit up a political thread on a bad movie website. Given that nobody's laid claim to Lester or Raffine's decreased karma points, [Sherlock]I think a Bushie reg may be voicing their opinion via disguise so as to avoid liberal backlash[/Sherlock].
Perhaps, but then they wouldn't be able to knock karma...
No, I meant that they may be knocking the karma under their regular account, but then signing in as a guest so they can make their Pro-Bush statement without fear of getting their karma knocked in return. You know, the old "I can do it to you, but I don't want you doing it to me" double standard. :lookingup:


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: Menard on May 17, 2008, 12:35:26 PM
Hmmmm...

How many of us hotlink images from the originating websites, rather than upload them to an image host? Which, btw, really p**ses off the webmasters of said sites.


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: AnubisVonMojo on May 17, 2008, 02:13:07 PM
Well, sometimes I hotlink pics from sites... oh crap, could it be that my evil twin is behind all this?!  :question:

Oh wait, no matter how evil he might be, my evil twin still wouldn't knock somebody for anti-Bush statements. I guess that absolves me!  :tongueout:


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: Menard on May 17, 2008, 02:29:25 PM
Well, sometimes I hotlink pics from sites... oh crap, could it be that my evil twin is behind all this?!  :question:

Oh wait, no matter how evil he might be, my evil twin still wouldn't knock somebody for anti-Bush statements. I guess that absolves me!  :tongueout:


Interesting reply  :question:, but I wasn't making a reference to you in my previous post.

Good luck to your evil twin. :thumbup:

 :teddyr:


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: Allhallowsday on May 17, 2008, 03:59:05 PM
Well, sometimes I hotlink pics from sites... oh crap, could it be that my evil twin is behind all this?!  :question:

Oh wait, no matter how evil he might be, my evil twin still wouldn't knock somebody for anti-Bush statements. I guess that absolves me!  :tongueout:


Interesting reply  :question:, but I wasn't making a reference to you in my previous post...
But you did ask a question...    :wink:


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: Jack on May 17, 2008, 06:04:19 PM
I lost 2 karma points.


sorry, i didn't realize there were a plurality of saudi arabians on this board.

raffine-  oil just shot up like a dollar

I gave you one negative karma.  I've given you at least 2 or possibly 3 positive lately, so I took one back.  I gave you a negative because I think your original post is utterly pointless.  I mean, it's just a smart aleck comment - the very definition of trolling.  I would never give anyone a negative for posting an honest, heartfelt opinion of an issue that concerns them, even if I disagreed strongly with it.  But this obviously doesn't qualify.  I'm certainly no "bushie", I think he's done an absolutely lousy job as president.  I'm just sick of all this political BS on the board.  Others have told you this as well.  We all have interests other than bad movies, yet when I want to talk about guitar playing, I go to Harmony Central.  When I want to talk about home theater, I go to AVS.  There are hundreds, if not thousands of political boards on the internet, why can't you do the same? 


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: indianasmith on May 17, 2008, 08:06:59 PM
Bush made a valid point, it being this:  the Saudi GOVERNMENT does not directly sponsor terrorism  - albeit many Saudi citizens do.  The Saudi GOVERNMENT has not recently expressed a wish to wipe Israel off the map, unlike certain other Middle Eastern countries whose nutjob leaders a certain Democratic candidate said that he would meet and talk with . . . and the Saudi government is the world's single largest producer of oil, a commodity whose shrinking supply and increasing demand have cause prices to surge.  Bottom line, until alternative energies are developed, with HAVE to deal with the Saudis, whether we like their mysoginistic, stone aged Arabic butts or not!!!!

I've dinged no one's karma today, but feel free to take a shot at mine if you disagree.


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: Captain Tars Tarkas on May 17, 2008, 10:20:05 PM
Hmmmm...

How many of us hotlink images from the originating websites, rather than upload them to an image host? Which, btw, really p**ses off the webmasters of said sites.

I was losing Gigs of bandwidth to myspace alone before I modified my htaccess file to block most hotlinking, that was two years ago and I can only imagine how many gigs I'd lose now if I was unblocked.  Even though I'm on a webhost where I could probably eat that bandwidth with little cost, it's the principle of the thing, and also the possibility I'll migrate hosts in the future.


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: Menard on May 17, 2008, 10:23:34 PM
Bush made a valid point, it being this:  the Saudi GOVERNMENT does not directly sponsor terrorism  - albeit many Saudi citizens do.  The Saudi GOVERNMENT has not recently expressed a wish to wipe Israel off the map, unlike certain other Middle Eastern countries whose nutjob leaders a certain Democratic candidate said that he would meet and talk with . . . and the Saudi government is the world's single largest producer of oil, a commodity whose shrinking supply and increasing demand have cause prices to surge.  Bottom line, until alternative energies are developed, with HAVE to deal with the Saudis, whether we like their mysoginistic, stone aged Arabic butts or not!!!!

I've dinged no one's karma today, but feel free to take a shot at mine if you disagree.

Please define 'not directly'. :tongueout:


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: Allhallowsday on May 17, 2008, 10:30:14 PM
Bush made a valid point, it being this:  the Saudi GOVERNMENT does not directly sponsor terrorism  - albeit many Saudi citizens do.  The Saudi GOVERNMENT has not recently expressed a wish to wipe Israel off the map, unlike certain other Middle Eastern countries whose nutjob leaders a certain Democratic candidate said that he would meet and talk with . . . and the Saudi government is the world's single largest producer of oil, a commodity whose shrinking supply and increasing demand have cause prices to surge.  Bottom line, until alternative energies are developed, with HAVE to deal with the Saudis, whether we like their mysoginistic, stone aged Arabic butts or not!!!!

I've dinged no one's karma today, but feel free to take a shot at mine if you disagree.

Please define 'not directly'. :tongueout:
Yeh really.   :lookingup:  :twirl:  :drink:  :twirl:  :bouncegiggle:


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: indianasmith on May 17, 2008, 11:50:07 PM
The Saudi Government does not meet the criteria laid down by our State Department to be defined as a "state sponsor of terrorism,"  that's what I mean.
   Do I like them?  NO!!!  However, if the Saudi royals are ever overthrown, the general population of that country is so radicalized by Wahabi clerics that the resulting theocracy would make Iran look like the Swiss.  In short, the Saudi royals are the best thing we can hope for in that country.
   Frankly, Saudi Arabia is pretty much a poster child for the argument that Islam is an evil, repressive religion.  However, for the timebeing, we have to deal with them, and hope the House of Saud can stay in power until the poisoning of the minds of generations of Saudi schoolchildren can slowly be undone.
  Iran, however, is very much a wild card.  Ahmadenajad, or however he spells his name, is a nutjob.  What is interesting is that the general population of Iran is LESS radicalized than the government and military.  I keep hoping some pro-Western student will put a round in the head of that tyrant and save the rest of the world a lot of grief.


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: Menard on May 17, 2008, 11:58:14 PM
The Saudi Government does not meet the criteria laid down by our State Department to be defined as a "state sponsor of terrorism,"  that's what I mean.

The State Department...

...or the Bush Administration?


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: indianasmith on May 18, 2008, 12:21:12 AM
The State Department's guidelines have remained largely unchanged since the Reagan years, to the best of my knowledge.  They may have been tweaked after 9/11, which makes sense.  My larger point is, we have no real choice but to deal with the Saudis now, unless we choose to wage a war of total extermination against all radical Muslims everywhere.  Given the hard time we've had subduing them in one country, that's a bit too big a bite for the U.S. to chew.


Even if the baser part of me thinks it would be a good idea.


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: lester1/2jr on May 18, 2008, 07:45:26 AM
indiana-  the repression in saudi arabia puts iran to shame.  FORGET what anyones government says or does.  15 of the 19 hijackers came from saudi arabia. 

at least ahmedenajad was ELECTED.  the saudis are ROYALS. 

also, did you know there are 20,000 jews who live in Iran?  including an mp in parliament who is quite popular. 


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: indianasmith on May 18, 2008, 07:52:05 AM
I'm not gonna defend the Saudis.  I'm just saying that there is no viable alternative to dealing with their government right now.  In Iran, the people seem to be sick of the rule of the mullahs.  I wish they'd have a good old fashioned pro-Western Revolution.  But as my Iranian friend told me in college, "In my country, the crazies have all the guns."


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: lester1/2jr on May 18, 2008, 09:02:13 AM
well, most of the iranians I know are pretty conservative.  they share the same modern way of life we do but pretty much favor society more or less as the way it is there.  that's how ahmedenjad got elected,  appeealing to the "red staters". 

I suppose some allowences could be made for the saudis lack of participation in the usal empty threats thrown at israel and sunni v shia stuff, but they are most definately part of the problem and we are in bed with them not just "sitting down" the way some people say we can never do with iran.

and don't get me started on China.  Bush has hu jintao over at the rose garden for press conferences.  the guy has like an 80 foot statue of Mao, the greatest mass murderer in history, outside his office.

and what about "democratic" India?  ever heard the invisible ones?  there is a rigid class system in india where one group of people are treated like garbage for no good reason other than tradition and superstition.

so, if you train a microscope on one country, and look at another one through rose tinted glasses, sure you can make one despot look better than another.

we should look at all of them with the same scrutiny


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: CheezeFlixz on May 18, 2008, 10:08:04 AM
If some president hadn't veto'd ANWAR bill in 1994 we might not be in this mess. As long as we have to keep buying oil from foreign suppliers while we set on billions and billions of barrels of it untouched the price is going to continue to rise and we're going to continue to get hit in the pocket book.

We ought to utilize our own supplies at home while developing a alternative form of power. We put a man on the moon in less than 10 years, for crissake we can make a car run on hydrogen affordable to the masses.

I do not understand why the government for many years, on both sides of the aisle have failed to see what the average Joe citizen saw coming.


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: AndyC on May 18, 2008, 10:10:09 AM
The problem with looking at all of them with the same scrutiny is that the end result is all of them against you. Sometimes you just have to play nice with the despot who is easier to deal with.


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: lester1/2jr on May 18, 2008, 10:13:43 AM
cheeze-  anwar has like 6 months supply.  I agre we shold drill there but it's not the answer ot our problems.


andy-  I disagree.  why support any dictators?  why intervene in other countries affairs.  not just on principle, but on the  fact that we have had such bad results from it.  why should americans who are struggling to pay for heating oil and food pay billions to middle eastern dictators?  you can't do much worse than the saudis,  whoever comes up after them if we leave will have to sell oil as well.  they can't very well drink it


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: AndyC on May 18, 2008, 10:13:48 AM
We put a man on the moon in less than 10 years
Yeah, but we've been dicking around in low earth orbit for 40 years since then. Astronauts went to the moon in 10 years because somebody set a deadline and people did what needed to be done to meet it. Is that spirit still alive today?


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: AnubisVonMojo on May 18, 2008, 10:28:32 AM
We ought to utilize our own supplies at home while developing a alternative form of power. We put a man on the moon in less than 10 years, for crissake we can make a car run on hydrogen affordable to the masses.

Didn't somebody already come up with an idea like that, but some oil corporation bought the patents and therefore shut down any possibility of it ever being made so as to quell any type of competition? Or was that just a conspiracy theory someone told me years ago? :question:


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: AndyC on May 18, 2008, 11:30:01 AM
why support any dictators?  why intervene in other countries affairs.  not just on principle, but on the  fact that we have had such bad results from it.

Based on a couple of recent examples of American meddling backfiring. Strategic alliances have been standard operating procedure for governments around the world for millennia. On the whole, they work.


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: lester1/2jr on May 18, 2008, 11:37:40 AM
for whom?  dictators?  heavily taxed citizens who get sent to fight their leaders wars?

i believe in free trade, but not destructive statecraft and other imperialism.






Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: CheezeFlixz on May 18, 2008, 02:42:05 PM
cheeze-  anwar has like 6 months supply.  I agre we shold drill there but it's not the answer ot our problems.


Ok add that to the off shore oil we're not tapping, the ND fields were not tapping, the shale oil that can now be retrieved we're not tapping and  bunch more. The US is setting on many huge oil reserves and we're not using them. We need to find an alternative, but in the mean time OPEC has got us by the short hairs.

Didn't somebody already come up with an idea like that, but some oil corporation bought the patents and therefore shut down any possibility of it ever being made so as to quell any type of competition? Or was that just a conspiracy theory someone told me years ago? :question:


They make them now ...

http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/ (http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/)

But the cost of converting water to hydrogen is still expensive. But at the rate gas is going up, it'll soon be a bargin.

Yeah, but we've been dicking around in low earth orbit for 40 years since then. Astronauts went to the moon in 10 years because somebody set a deadline and people did what needed to be done to meet it. Is that spirit still alive today?


Yes i believe it is, it might be a coma but it's alive. I feel the American spirit will come through in times of need. Right now we're to politically polarized to get much done, we need to get on the same page which will require both sides to compromise. Nothing gets done without give and take. Nobody ever made an omelet without breaking a few eggs.   


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: Raffine on May 18, 2008, 03:34:34 PM
What about those magnetic engines  (http://pesn.com/2007/09/28/9500499_NEC_Magnet_Motor_Witnesses/) I've read about? Supposedly they run without any type of conventional fuel. Is this a pipe dream, a suppresed technology, or a real possiblity as an alternative to fossil-fuel engines?

I'm hoping for gyroscope-powered automobile technology, based on those Wizzers some of us had as kids.

 (http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t214/morrisawilliams/WizzerTyco.jpg)



Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: Menard on May 18, 2008, 05:33:29 PM
...those Wizzers some of us had as kids.

Ah still have mah wizzer; ah use it to take a wiz, among other things. :teddyr:

Sorry to hear about yours. :tongueout:


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: AnubisVonMojo on May 18, 2008, 07:40:30 PM
Uh-oh, my own karma has been pinged now! Perhaps I'm getting too close to the truth...

"Do you think they might be involved with the Kennedy assassination in some way?"
"I do... now..." :buggedout:


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: AndyC on May 18, 2008, 07:50:48 PM
for whom?  dictators?  heavily taxed citizens who get sent to fight their leaders wars?

i believe in free trade, but not destructive statecraft and other imperialism.

Oh boy.... Take a couple of steps back from the specific examples you're citing. Forget about US foreign policy or any present-day governments, and try to look at history in more general terms. Then you might understand what I'm saying.


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: Raffine on May 19, 2008, 12:27:54 AM
...those Wizzers some of us had as kids.


Ah still have mah wizzer; ah use it to take a wiz, among other things. :teddyr:

Sorry to hear about yours. :tongueout:


 :bouncegiggle:

Sad, really.

And it went so well with my Clackers:

(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t214/morrisawilliams/ClackersBLUE.jpg)

These wound up hanging from the telephone line in front of our house, bu that's another story.



Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: AnubisVonMojo on May 19, 2008, 05:34:42 PM
Given my continued de-karmaing (thanks btw to whomever restored one of my points prior to it being dinged down twice more) in a thread where the extent of any "inflamatory" comments I've made have been calling a "guest" posting in the thread an undercover Bush supporter, [Freud] I'd say somebody has some secret shame in being a "Bushie" and is projecting it on others... [/Freud]

Oh the pain, the pain of it all. :lookingup:


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: indianasmith on May 19, 2008, 05:55:34 PM
I'm a proud Bush Republican and I just bumped you!   So there!


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: AndyC on May 19, 2008, 05:58:42 PM
Well, I gave both of you positive Karma - Indiana for being up-front with his negative karma, and Anubis for his [freud] tag, which I just think is funny as hell.


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: AnubisVonMojo on May 19, 2008, 06:07:54 PM
I'm a proud Bush Republican and I just bumped you!   So there!

Is the term "Bushie" offensive to Bush supporters? Is it like calling a vertically challenged person a "midget"? Didn't the term originate from a Karl Rove e-mail to begin with?


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: Menard on May 19, 2008, 07:18:19 PM
I'm a proud Bush Republican and I just bumped you!   So there!

 :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle:

That's funny. Someone proud to be a republican or a shrub supporter.

Tell us another one. :drink:


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: Killer Bees on May 19, 2008, 07:33:17 PM
what?  it was a sick show.  I saw one where the older boys starting chewing tobacco and a week later one of them got mouth cancer

Lester, I thought you avatar was a possessed kid from some horror movie!


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: indianasmith on May 19, 2008, 07:46:14 PM
Anubis, you misunderstand - I do not take the term "Bushie" as an insult, and I did not lower your karma, I raised it!

And Menard, Yes, I am proud to be a Republican, even if I'm not always proud of everything my party does.  At least our solution to every single problem is not to punish business, raise taxes, and erode private property rights.  Some of us at least remember the principles of a free market economy and prefer to see government protecting rather than providing.  Bush isn't perfect, but I voted for him twice as President and twice as Governor.  Considering the opposition each time around, I would vote the same way all over again.  If the Democrats win control of the White House and both Houses of Congress, it will take decades to repair the damage they will do to this country.  In the name of providing for the poor, and esecially "the children", you will see the largest full-scale assault on free enterprise, private property, and business in American history.


It doesn't take a village to raise a child.  It takes PARENTS!  Let me keep my money in my wallet and I will raise my own children.


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: AnubisVonMojo on May 19, 2008, 07:55:50 PM
Anubis, you misunderstand - I do not take the term "Bushie" as an insult, and I did not lower your karma, I raised it!

Oh, no, I didn't refer that you had dinged my karma Indie, I think that's what Andy thought. I figured you had raised it and for that I thank you sir. One back at you. I was just asking if you know why Republicans, being one yourself, would find the term "Bushie" offensive, considering that's about the closest thing to a slight I've said so far that might've gotten my karma popped down in the first place by whomever.

Unless it still has something to do with my theory about riprake being an alias for someone who's too timid to make their position known under their regular board account... or about my confession that I sometimes hotlink to images? Meh, if nobody wants to take credit for it, I'm not bothering with it anymore. Thanks to Indie, Andy and whomever else have karma-ed me lately. Back at ya! :teddyr:



Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: Menard on May 19, 2008, 08:00:44 PM
And Menard, Yes, I am proud to be a Republican, even if I'm not always proud of everything my party does.  At least our solution to every single problem is not to punish business, raise taxes, and erode private property rights.  Some of us at least remember the principles of a free market economy and prefer to see government protecting rather than providing.  Bush isn't perfect, but I voted for him twice as President and twice as Governor.  Considering the opposition each time around, I would vote the same way all over again.  If the Democrats win control of the White House and both Houses of Congress, it will take decades to repair the damage they will do to this country.  In the name of providing for the poor, and esecially "the children", you will see the largest full-scale assault on free enterprise, private property, and business in American history.

You've got to be kidding.

An economy like this and this is an improvement over the Clinton years?

Who are the p***y republicans blaming now? They've had control of the White House and Congress, and look at the mess. It must be somebody else's fault that gas prices are through the roof, our dollar is worth less than the Canadian, small business is dropping like flies, and anybody who is not part of the elite is having to rub pennies together just to make ends meet; and I haven't even mentioned two wars overseas. It must be somebody else's fault; it always is.

Damn! Get Democrats in control and reverse this trend; how will we ever recover?

Oh, I get it; you're yanking our collective leg again.

Funny. :drink:


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: indianasmith on May 19, 2008, 08:38:03 PM
Actually, from 1994, when the Republicans took control of Congress, until 2006, when we lost it, the economy did quite well - especially in rebounding from the hit we took on 9/11.  Yeah, we are experiencing an adjustment right now - that happens from time to time.  But by and large, the economy in the last few years hasn't been that bad.  The big problems are the ongoing oil price surge, fed by several factors, and the housing crunch, which quite frankly was caused by too many people buying homes they couldn't afford.

As far as only the rich having two pennies together, my wife and I are both schoolteachers, and we just somehow managed to retire all our credit card debt for the first time in 10 years.

As for two wars . . . well, since Bush took the fight to the enemy instead of just lobbing a missile at an aspirin factory and calling it justice, we have had zero terrorist attacks on our own soil.  Both wars were legal and justified.

BTW, the incredible spike in gas prices did not start until Democrats won control of Congress.  There was an increase in the first six years of Bush's presidency - that was bound to happen, since we'd lived in an artificial low price bubble since the late 80's.  But $4 a gallon?  Thank Nancy Pelosi for that.


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: Menard on May 19, 2008, 08:46:29 PM
Actually, from 1994, when the Republicans took control of Congress, until 2006, when we lost it, the economy did quite well - especially in rebounding from the hit we took on 9/11.  Yeah, we are experiencing an adjustment right now - that happens from time to time.  But by and large, the economy in the last few years hasn't been that bad.  The big problems are the ongoing oil price surge, fed by several factors, and the housing crunch, which quite frankly was caused by too many people buying homes they couldn't afford.

As far as only the rich having two pennies together, my wife and I are both schoolteachers, and we just somehow managed to retire all our credit card debt for the first time in 10 years.

As for two wars . . . well, since Bush took the fight to the enemy instead of just lobbing a missile at an aspirin factory and calling it justice, we have had zero terrorist attacks on our own soil.  Both wars were legal and justified.

BTW, the incredible spike in gas prices did not start until Democrats won control of Congress.  There was an increase in the first six years of Bush's presidency - that was bound to happen, since we'd lived in an artificial low price bubble since the late 80's.  But $4 a gallon?  Thank Nancy Pelosi for that.

 :lookingup:


Well, at least you are up front about your conservatism; unlike too many of the conservatives who run around on this board knocking down other's karma, but too pussified to admit it (like a conservative).

Here's to you someday being able to see. :cheers:


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: CheezeFlixz on May 19, 2008, 09:42:46 PM
Quote
An economy like this and this is an improvement over the Clinton years?

Give me a freakin' break! Clinton road the wild west of the internet bubble which was bursting in fall '98 and '99 and 9/11 finished it off.

So tell me what did Clinton do while in the White House, besides Monica? Oh yeah, he slashed the military by 40%, he slashed development by 57% and he slashed procurement 71% placing us at one of our weakest points in history. And then he turned down Osama Bin Ladin being handed to him ... oh and he had over half the Navy ships decommissioned placing our Navy at it's weakest level since 1938. I will be fair and say one thing he did right was to implement the Welfare to Work program (Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act), but then again that was introduced and spearheaded by Republicans.

The 2 democrats running for office right now have purposed over $1,800,000,000,000.00 (That's TRILLION) in NEW government programs ... and they have the nerve to call the Iraq war expensive. Tell me how you going to pay for it.


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: Allhallowsday on May 19, 2008, 10:43:50 PM
...The 2 democrats running for office right now have purposed over $1,800,000,000,000.00 (That's TRILLION) in NEW government programs ... and they have the nerve to call the Iraq war expensive. Tell me how you going to pay for it.
The word is "proposed."  I know you know that.   :smile: 


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: CheezeFlixz on May 19, 2008, 11:07:56 PM
...The 2 democrats running for office right now have purposed over $1,800,000,000,000.00 (That's TRILLION) in NEW government programs ... and they have the nerve to call the Iraq war expensive. Tell me how you going to pay for it.
The word is "proposed."  I know you know that.   :smile: 

You are correct, sir. However, my concern is with a Democratically controlled congress that word will change to "implement". I do not believe in wealth redistribution, it kind of undermines that entire entrepreneur, free market concept that built this country.


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: Zapranoth on May 20, 2008, 01:45:28 AM
Yeah, yeah.

I'm either voting for Zod, for Great Cthulhu, or else for myself (the Eye of Sauron).  It's time we had a proper dictatorship in this country.   What better choice than perhaps a power-mad Kryptonian, the greatest of the Old Ones, or else an evil that never sleeps?

Though I'm thinking Zod would be the most effective leader.  Cthulhu would just ravage, and I'm not sure how the Eye would deal with congress.  Just send in Nazgul to kill dissident congressmen?  Or else have Grima filibuster congress?   It'd be completely nonsensical.     But Zod!  Oh, yes, we'd have ourselves a real leader then!

All will kneel before Zod!

http://www.zod2008.com/


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: trekgeezer on May 20, 2008, 08:05:39 AM
Wah!Wah! Wahhhhh!!

I really get tired of the s**t!      Doesn't matter which party is in office, the citizen's get screwed.  The only difference in the parties is the rhetoric the spew.


I'm with Zapranoth and will be putting my support behind Zod.


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: lester1/2jr on May 20, 2008, 09:49:27 AM
we have a 3 trillion dollar budget.  from 00 to 06, when the GOP had the white house and the legistlature spending increased bya trillion.

as has the scope of government, with the patriot act and so forth.  we have a massive, intrusive federal government.  way way moreso than under clinton.

clinton didn't get us into any prolonged conflicts.  he didn't screw up the economy, yeah taxes were higher, but he was taxing the heck out of what was a bubble,  and he slashed welfare rolls.

"the era of big government is over" clinton 96.  yes some of it had to do with the republican congress,  but the SAME congress all the sudden started spending like crazy on highway pork, coporate welfare and subsisides to buy votes circa 00-now


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: trekgeezer on May 20, 2008, 02:58:42 PM
Like I said, not much difference in the two parties.  They each have to pander to thier constituents which are typically the far fringe elements of said parties.

Our representatives care more about raising money to keep their campaign chests full than they do for doing what's right. It's all about political expediency.

I have no doubt that some sincere idealistic people get elected, but once they are in the system they must learn to operate within in it. They learn to play the game or they have no chance at making  even the slightest difference.

Moderation has been thrown to the wind and only the Right Wingnuts and the Leftist Liberals can be heard any more.  These two groups yelling at each other are the only political discourse that get carried by the media.

Sound cynical, you bet!


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: lester1/2jr on May 20, 2008, 03:18:47 PM
trekgeezer-  agreed.  not a dimes worth of difference between the two.  the right wants endless wars and warrentless wiretapping.  the left wants universal healthcare and "the fairness doctorine" so there awful radio shows can get life support.  bigger, more invasive government either way.

   I saw a committee hearing on cspan.  chuck schumer was begging ben bernanke to cut interest rates so that his constituents, consumers,  could get some trickle down cash to buy christmas presents. sam brownback was begging for the same so his constituents,  businessowners, could get the same for the same reason. 

so they cut the rates.  now if you had 10,000 dollars in the bank it  buys much less than it would have before they cut the rates.

ultra short term thinking


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: AndyC on May 20, 2008, 04:01:11 PM
so they cut the rates.  now if you had 10,000 dollars in the bank it  buys much less than it would have before they cut the rates.

:buggedout: Honestly, I'm speechless. You apparently learned nothing the last time the whole saving vs. spending thing was debated, so I won't bother repeating myself. But I will say that unless you're extremely wealthy or an old man without too many years left, keeping $10,000 in a savings account, collecting nothing but interest, is just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. The bank would be making money on it, but you wouldn't be doing much better than if you stuffed it in a mattress.


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: indianasmith on May 20, 2008, 04:08:11 PM
Actually, Lester, I will agree - the Republicans abandoned some of their principles when they had been in the majority a couple of years.  The whole warrantless wiretap thing is way overblown - all the Bush administration sought permission to do was monitor the communications of those in the U.S. who were contacting KNOWN terrorist operatives overseas.  How anyone could object to that is beyond me . . .  I mean, the Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact!

But I agree, the Republican Congress showed all the spending discipline of a drunken sailor in Tijuana.  But they did do some GREAT things early on, including the balanced budget and welfare reform that Clinton so proudly took all the credit for.  I am hoping our time in the wilderness will teach my party a lesson and return us to our basic principles of national security and fiscal discipline.

As far as the corrupting influence of Washington, Dave Barry has a wonderful chapter on the growth of government and government spending in his marvelous book, DAVE BARRY HITS BELOW THE BELTWAY.  It is one of most painfully funny books on government ever written, and I read a chapter to my U.S. government class every couple of weeks last semester.

As far as the Cthulhu/Sauron/Zod ticket goes, I'll say this - McCain might not be a cyclopean blasphemous deity from another dimension, but he is definitely one of the Old Ones!


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: clockworkcanary on May 20, 2008, 07:12:26 PM
"we have had zero terrorist attacks on our own soil"

You must define terrorist attacks differently because I distinctly remember a few anthrax attacks, the Columbus OH freeway sniper, the Washington DC snipers, a terrible Amish school shooting, and the VT school shooting just to name a few. 


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: clockworkcanary on May 20, 2008, 07:13:15 PM
"since Bush took the fight to the enemy"

He attacked Saudi Arabia and Egypt?  I was not aware.


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: clockworkcanary on May 20, 2008, 07:15:28 PM
"BTW, the incredible spike in gas prices did not start until Democrats won control of Congress."

Didn't you just say you were a school teacher?  Democrats don't "control" congress w/51% (w/one turncoat democrat Joe counted or not) - doesn't there need to be a 3/4 vote to pass anything in either branch?  Not to mention the power of Bush's veto.  I mean, I could be wrong on those percentages but Democrats don't "control" Congress.  Nice talking point though.


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: indianasmith on May 20, 2008, 07:16:14 PM
I don't define domestic crimes like those you mention as terrorism, at least not large scale attacks like 9/11, the Madrid bombings, and the first attempt on the WTC in 1993.  


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: indianasmith on May 20, 2008, 07:19:25 PM
"BTW, the incredible spike in gas prices did not start until Democrats won control of Congress."

Didn't you just say you were a school teacher?  Democrats don't "control" congress w/51% (w/one turncoat democrat Joe counted or not) - doesn't there need to be a 3/4 vote to pass anything in either branch?  Not to mention the power of Bush's veto.  I mean, I could be wrong on those percentages but Democrats don't "control" Congress.  Nice talking point though.

A simple majority is all that is required to pass a bill in either House of Congress.  The Democrats have, at the moment, a 52-46 majority in the Senate, with two independents (Jim Jeffords, ex-republican, Joe Lieberman, ex-Democrat).  They have about a 16 seat majority in the House.  It is true that Bush can wield the veto pen on particularly disagreeable measures, but he has been more restrained in its use than I would have been.  Plus quite a few Republicans in vulnerable seats will vote against him, either on principle or to show their constituents how independent they are.


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: clockworkcanary on May 20, 2008, 07:19:43 PM
I don't define domestic crimes like those you mention as terrorism, at least not large scale attacks like 9/11, the Madrid bombings, and the first attempt on the WTC in 1993.  

I see...rather convenient don't you think?  And since they never caught the Anthrax attackers, how do you know they were domestic in origin?  I bet if you asked any of the victims or family of the victims, they would disagree with your assessment.  I bet those situations were very terrifying indeed.


Terrorism is terrorism (like the Oklahoma City bombing) domestic, international, small, largescale or not.   All of those attacks were crimes ...and acts of terrorism.  To say we haven't had any terrorist attacks on our soil since 9/11 just isn't true.


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: indianasmith on May 20, 2008, 07:26:09 PM
All crime is terrifying to the victim.  I am not attempting to belittle their suffering.  What I am pointing out is that, since the enemy is focusing his efforts on driving us out of Iraq, and losing thousands of his Islamofascist foot soldiers in the process, they seem to have lost the capability to carry out large scale attacks on U.S. civilians. 


Bin Laden has repeatedly expressed his desire to create an "American Hiroshima", to kill off  tens of thousands of Americans in a single devastating attack.  He even commented in one conversation that he hoped to kill at least 10,000 American children in such a Holocaust, to cripple the "Great Satan" for the next generation.  Islamic extremists are the Nazis of the 21st century, and the world will not be safe until they are either exterminated or rendered incapable of carrying out large-scale acts of terrorism.

Bush is not a perfect man, but he is the first president who has actually had the guts to attack Islamic terrorism in its native breeding ground.  He has his foot on the snake, and it may be thrashing about and striking, but at least we are in a position now to deal it a mortal blow.  Beats the heck out of lobbing missiles into an empty training camp and an aspirin factory.  Would Gore or Kerry have had the guts for this kind of fight, with all the wimps and lefties that seem to thrive in the Democratic party?  I doubt it.


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: clockworkcanary on May 20, 2008, 07:47:12 PM
I'm sorry but none of what you have said makes any of those other attacks any less of a terrorist act.  If you want to say that we've not had any "known" terrorist attacks from Bin Ladin, that might be one thing, but to say we've had no terrorist attacks on our soil isn't true, except from an Orwellian word-spin point of view.

I distinctly remember the Oklahoma City Bombing as being a home-grown terrorist attack and labeled as such from darn near about everyone from the entire US political spectrum.

"Islamofascist" - cute Orwellian wordsmithing example :)  Is not fascism an economic system? 

"Islamic extremists are the Nazis of the 21st century" - well, I agree that they are both "bad" but to pair negative stimuli just to make a point is rather disengenious.  They are totally not the threat that the Nazi regime was -they don't have the manpower, they don't have the military complex, and they don't have the resources.  This is why they use terrorist tactics.

"Bush is not a perfect man, but he is the first president who has actually had the guts to attack Islamic terrorism in its native breeding ground."

Selectively attacking maybe, when convenient.  Perhaps he should have started in Saudi Arabia where the majority of the 9/11 hijackers originated?  You know, where they teach their children to hate us?  Why was he a cafeteria attacker?  See, no one opposed attacking the Taliban asshats (an ultra-conservative, religious rightwing group of fanatics) in Afganistan (well few might have but not many).  But Iraq was a bungling distraction -machoism, rumored to have been planned before 9/11.  It was to win a quick victory and for revenge (because revenge always solves problems).  It has in effect created more terrorists and definitely made more people hate us in the long run.  Not much for little Iraqis to do but hate us when we've bombed their infrastructure, destroyed their power and light, killed their older brothers, and wrecked their economy ...all to just get back at a guy we helped put in power in the first place.

At least Bush Sr. knew not to even try to occupy and used containment surgical strikes.  Hell, the Bush administration (what's left of them...he can't keep a cabinet tother) even admitted they didn't have any post war plans and underestimated the situation.  You can't win someone else's civil war especially if you don't understand the culture.  Cowboy machoism only p**ses people off.  But Bush apologists never cease to amaze me with their mental gymastic excuses for this guy.  You must be the last remaining 28%.  I suppose you're among the 9% who like Dick Cheney?

"Would Gore or Kerry have had the guts for this kind of fight, with all the wimps and lefties that seem to thrive in the Democratic party?  I doubt it."

You mean the leftie wimp, John Kerry, who actually went to war and got wounded while Mr. 9% Cheney filled out 5 deferrment requests while Bush, the war hero protected the skies of Alabama from the Vietcong?


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: AnubisVonMojo on May 20, 2008, 08:29:41 PM
I still get a kick out of it every time somebody plays the interview with Cheney where he says that invading Iraq would just be a massive cluster f*ck and the stupidest possible action anyone could take... until it comes to sacrificing thousands of American lives in an effort to makes a fortune off someone else's oil... which it looks like they couldn't even get that right... Forget "egg" on your face, I'd say Cheney's got the whole chicken Super Glued to him. :bouncegiggle:

Oh well, if nothing else, hopefully future generations will be able to use this as a learning experience about how hard it is to erase a few thousand years of someone else's culture and attempt to replace it with a version of our own way of doing things that's only been around for a couple hundred... and apparently still isn't quite working well enough to keep everybody happy... not that anything can keep everybody happy all of the time... and, as an American consumer, I don't see myself trading it for anywhere else in the world... because the chemicals in the fast food and the subliminal messages in the entertainment industry have made me completely dependent on the things that make me one of the overweight, under health cared members of the global community that every body else hates or laughs at... heh.  :teddyr:


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: indianasmith on May 20, 2008, 09:22:24 PM
At least we are free to alternately bash or defend our leaders   . . . .


which no one in Iran is.  Karma to you both for exercising freedom of speech!


(that being said, I still think you are mostly wrong. Clockwork, read back on this thread to some earlier comments I made about the Saudis, I don't feel like repeating my fairly detailed statement on why taking out the Saudi gov't would be a much worse nightmare than Iraq)


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: clockworkcanary on May 20, 2008, 10:21:21 PM
Well Karma back atchya - gotta love the right to vent :)

But you have yet to make the case on why we invaded Iraq for the 9/11 terrorist attacks.  Invading Saudi Arabia isn't what I'm suggesting really; I'm just saying that invading a country that had nothing to do with the attacks was just downright dumb. 

Ask yourself this question: was Osama Bin Ladin angered, saddened, or happy that Bush attacked Iraq, one of his other enemies?  I'm betting he was overjoyed at Bush's downright stupidity.  Al Queda wasn't there until after the attack.  Bush played right into his hands, bleeding our troops, squandering our resources, showing the world our tactics and arms, while recruiting a great many more potential terrorists.  We could have finished the job in Afghanistan by now if it wasn't for that mess.  But no, we had to lump 'em all together and try to look tough.  Sometimes it's better to fight smarter than look all macho.  Hate only breeds more hate. 

And just curious: I'm mostly wrong about what? The reasons Bush invaded Iraq? Well, we're certain it isn't because they attacked us first.  We'll never know why because they keep moving the goal posts and playing word games. 

Am I wrong about what constitutes a "terrorist" attack?  Don't think so -terrorist attacks aren't just "big" attacks by middle-eastern brown folks, I'm afraid.  You don't get to just redefine terms to suit your argument.

Wrong about the Taliban being a right-wing religious fanatic group? 

Wrong about Kerry actually serving his country while Cheney wussed out and Bush served in the safety of Alabama?  Yet Kerry's toughness, patriotism, and service duty were actually ended up being in question?  Absurd.

Am I wrong about Bush being an absolute moron, who can't even pronounce 'nuclear' or his own middle initial -who probably didn't know the difference between Iran and Iraq, politically or geographically?  The cowboy cheerleader fratboy who went to the same Ivy League school as Kerry.

Sorry, Bush was no Ronald Reagan, who appeased the USSR by talking with them.  Hell, Bush was no Richard Nixon, the guy who appeased China by having talks with them.  Bush was a schmuck riding Daddy's coattails, who had a great propaganda minister named Karl Rove. 

Clinton sucked a big one too (I went off about him all last decade heh) but I can't for the life of me see how anyone could still be making excuses for "Dubya."

Oh and here's what this winner thinks of you and the voting public:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdeCl1ZDYwo


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: Allhallowsday on May 20, 2008, 10:49:20 PM
...Bush is not a perfect man, but he is the first president who has actually had the guts to attack Islamic terrorism in its native breeding ground.  He has his foot on the snake, and it may be thrashing about and striking, but at least we are in a position now to deal it a mortal blow.  Beats the heck out of lobbing missiles into an empty training camp and an aspirin factory.  Would Gore or Kerry have had the guts for this kind of fight, with all the wimps and lefties that seem to thrive in the Democratic party?  I doubt it.
Y'almost had me there, Indiana, but this part of your commentary is troubling.  "Islamic terrorism" was most certainly not breeding in Iraq before the war.  I think a damned fine case could be made that if the primary concern of the BUSH administration had been Terrorism (and not OIL) then Saddam Hussein should have been recognized for what he was, a bulwark against its expansion.  But instead we have no WMD, and a terrible bloody war of attrition, too Vietnam-like to ignore history's lesson, and an unfocused first war, unfinished, in Afghanistan (the one move of BUSH's I did support). 

Attitudes definitely come and go, FDR in his day was opposed on all fronts domestic with his keen interest (and insight) that America would inevitably enter the World War and should fight the War overseas before it came to our door, that greatest of Presidents, the DEMOCRAT, as in his day by the REPUBLICANS, today would have been labeled a "sabre rattler," "war monger" or "hawkish." 


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: Inyarear on May 21, 2008, 12:13:34 AM
Y'almost had me there, Indiana, but this part of your commentary is troubling.  "Islamic terrorism" was most certainly not breeding in Iraq before the war.  I think a damned fine case could be made that if the primary concern of the BUSH administration had been Terrorism (and not OIL) then Saddam Hussein should have been recognized for what he was, a bulwark against its expansion.  But instead we have no WMD, and a terrible bloody war of attrition, too Vietnam-like to ignore history's lesson, and an unfocused first war, unfinished, in Afghanistan (the one move of BUSH's I did support).


This whole claim that Hussein was any kind of "bulwark" against terrorism's expansion is a major howler. Bush recognized Hussein for exactly what documents captured in Iraq (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/889pvpxc.asp) confirmed he was: Al Qaeda's bosom buddy, via (these documents revealed) his connections to Al Zawahiri, a.k.a. Osama bin Laden's second-in-command. I find it rather disturbing that so many of you guys haven't picked up on this point by now; this isn't the first time this lie has been refuted. Moreover, it bothers me that you buy all the media's lies about the search for WMDs, which were ONE (1) of the twenty or so (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2679) reasons our military went into Iraq.

None of you has any excuse for listening to these liars who hate Bush more than they love the truth. You want the truth, try listening to some actual soldiers and reporters at the front, and not those fools from the lamestream media sitting in their swanky hotels in the Green Zone and getting their reports from shady sources that almost invariably trace back to our enemies.

Bonus point: if Bush is really warring for oil, WHY HASN'T HE FOCUSED ON EXPLOITING IRAQ'S OIL NOW THAT HE'S GOT US IN THERE!? Honestly, update your talking points once in a while, AllHallowsDay. Same goes for the rest of you.

Further bonus point: This whole trip to Saudi Arabia was Pelosi's idea. (http://speaker.house.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=0655) She didn't mention any backup plans on what to do if they responded as they did. So where are your slams against her, you Bush-bashing hypocrites?


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: CheezeFlixz on May 21, 2008, 01:20:12 AM
Quote
But instead we have no WMD, and a terrible bloody war of attrition.

WMD's can be ideologies, WMD's can be one man. Ask the Kurds about WMD's and the desert is a big place that covers its tracks well. Any life lost is to many, but the Iraq war has lasted longer than the US involvement in WWII we've lost around 4000 lives in Iraq, yes that is a lot. However in WWII we lost 418,500 lives so lets put it in perspective, but really out of the nearly 70-100 million known deaths in WWII even that number is small.


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: CheezeFlixz on May 21, 2008, 01:32:18 AM
This whole claim that Hussein was any kind of "bulwark" against terrorism's expansion is a major howler. Bush recognized Hussein for exactly what documents captured in Iraq ([url]http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/889pvpxc.asp[/url]) confirmed he was: Al Qaeda's bosom buddy, via (these documents revealed) his connections to Al Zawahiri, a.k.a. Osama bin Laden's second-in-command. I find it rather disturbing that so many of you guys haven't picked up on this point by now; this isn't the first time this lie has been refuted. Moreover, it bothers me that you buy all the media's lies about the search for WMDs, which were ONE (1) of the twenty or so ([url]http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2679[/url]) reasons our military went into Iraq.

None of you has any excuse for listening to these liars who hate Bush more than they love the truth. You want the truth, try listening to some actual soldiers and reporters at the front, and not those fools from the lamestream media sitting in their swanky hotels in the Green Zone and getting their reports from shady sources that almost invariably trace back to our enemies.

Bonus point: if Bush is really warring for oil, WHY HASN'T HE FOCUSED ON EXPLOITING IRAQ'S OIL NOW THAT HE'S GOT US IN THERE!? Honestly, update your talking points once in a while, AllHallowsDay. Same goes for the rest of you.

Further bonus point: This whole trip to Saudi Arabia was Pelosi's idea. ([url]http://speaker.house.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=0655[/url]) She didn't mention any backup plans on what to do if they responded as they did. So where are your slams against her, you Bush-bashing hypocrites?


KARMA

I couple of more Pelosi tricks that are current ... the EMERGENCY WAR TIME SPENDING BILL (they vote today on it) has AMNESTY for 1.5 million illegals in it. THE FARM BILL is nearly $300 billion dollars and 60% of that is for FOOD STAMPS. I don't know any farmers on food stamps and I know a lot of them. I am sick to death of all this pork.


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: lester1/2jr on May 21, 2008, 08:34:49 AM
indiana smith-  in iran people are allowed to bash their leaders.  it's not always easy, but it happens pretty frequently.  a bunch of students stood up and barked at ahmednejad when he was at tehran university not long ago.  what happened to them?  he made fun of them in his blog.

in china or saudi arabia, our ostensible outlaws,  imagine what would have heppened to them.  you'd have to imagine because you'd never hear about it. 

andyc- 
Quote
But I will say that unless you're extremely wealthy or an old man without too many years left, keeping $10,000 in a savings account, collecting nothing but interest, is just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

so you think banks are stupid?  all of the major funds are down this year.  If you gave 10 to a broker last year you would have 9.  i would advise everyone against stocks unless they are chinese, brazilian or oil.

the rate of inflation was 1% in march.  that's a 12 percent annual rate.  if you aren't making 12 percent at least you are losing money.


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: AndyC on May 21, 2008, 10:26:32 AM
No, I just think you're looking at finance through the eyes of a six-year-old. Have you ever had a mortgage? Do you have any significant investments? I'm thinking the answer to both is probably no. How old are you? 17? 18?

Since I was dumb enough to respond to you, against my better judgement, I'll explain. You won't make enough interest on a bank account to make up for inflation, even if interest rates rise a little. Somebody buying a house or using a line of credit for their business will pay a much greater price for your tiny benefit.

The really interesting thing however, is that you accuse someone else of short-term thinking on the one hand, and then suggest basing an investment strategy on the current state of the market.

If you are looking at the long term, what stocks and funds are doing now is irrelevant. Unless you sell your stock, any short-term losses are strictly on paper. If you are, in fact, saving over a long term, you are best to ignore fluctuations, because in the long run, you will see far more growth.

And aside from that, you have things completely bass-ackwards. When stocks plummet, that is the best time to get in. There are solid, reliable companies that are temporarily undervalued because of people who think like you buying them when they're high and then bailing out when the price corrects itself.

Do you think your bank is just keeping your money in a vault? They're paying you sweet diddly FA in interest while they loan it out at a higher rate to people who benefit much more from lowered interest rates than you benefit from high ones. They also (ready for the shock) invest your money and make still more profit on it while clawing back what little interest they give you with various service charges.

For the record, I didn't say a bank account was stupid. I said you would be stupid to put a large sum in one as an investment. Bank accounts, today, are a place to keep money safe but accessible. Keep enough in it for expenses and emergencies. Anything more should go where it will actually work for you.

Now, feel free to shout "no, it isn't" a few times, refute everything I just said by attacking the wording of one specific point, and take a run at a strawman if you need to. And don't forget to take a condescending tone with someone older and more experienced than yourself. I expect nothing less.


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: lester1/2jr on May 21, 2008, 10:50:08 AM
Quote
Do you have any significant investments?

I trade for a living.

Quote
You won't make enough interest on a bank account to make up for inflation,

yuo would if there was no inflation.  there's not supposed to be inflation.  it's not a natural occurence.  there's no such thing as the "business cycle " either but that's another story.  pre keynes these problems didn't exist.

Quote
and then suggest basing an investment strategy on the current state of the market.

??  as opposed to other times?  should i be investing in transporter beams or steam engines?

Quote
If you are looking at the long term, what stocks and funds are doing now is irrelevant.

the stock market in march was at the same level it had been 10 years earlier.   the wall street journal called it "the lost decade".  unless you day teraded and bought on dips and sold on rips you would have the exact same amount of money ten years later.

Quote
There are solid, reliable companies that are temporarily undervalued because of people who think like you buying them when they're high and then bailing out when the price corrects itself.

that's how the world works. 


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: AndyC on May 21, 2008, 11:18:11 AM
Congratulations. You managed to do all at once, and tell a tall tale, and contradict yourself too. I'm impressed.

So, interest would be a good thing if there was no inflation because inflation is unnatural and shouldn't exist, but on the other hand, people ignorantly buying high, selling low and messing up the market for themselves (while a few others get rich doing the opposite) is the way the world works? Nice contradictory and equally nonsensical points. Two checks for that. You're in fine form.

And you also managed to make it look like you disputed a lot of my arguments when you really took shots at bits and pieces taken out of context and ignored several significant points completely. Check.

Very nice strawman argument with the steam engines and transporters. You must have known I was talking about long-term trends. Anyway, check.

Quoting a single sensationalized bit of media coverage (and I do have expertise in the field of journalism) as gospel truth. Check.

And what must surely be a lie. How come, after all of these financial debates, you only now mention this professional expertise of yours? I can only say, if you trade for a living, you must live with your parents. Come to think of it, you never did dispute my suggestion that you're a teenager. You do have the right mix of ignorance and arrogance.

Honestly, if I waste any more time on this guy, would somebody please dock my karma.


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: Allhallowsday on May 21, 2008, 11:21:53 AM
Bonus point: if Bush is really warring for oil, WHY HASN'T HE FOCUSED ON EXPLOITING IRAQ'S OIL NOW THAT HE'S GOT US IN THERE!?
That's a loaded question.  You tell me.  The answer either way is not going to reflect well on Bush. 

Further bonus point: This whole trip to Saudi Arabia was Pelosi's idea. ([url]http://speaker.house.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=0655[/url]) She didn't mention any backup plans on what to do if they responded as they did. So where are your slams against her, you Bush-bashing hypocrites?
Are you referring to me as a "Bush-bashing hypocrite"? 
Much has been said about the left and right of current politics on this board, but this is clear evidence of a "Bushie" resorting to insults.  You're rude, Inyarear.  Additionally, I did not mention nor discuss Bush's trip to Saudi Arabia. 

Honestly, update your talking points once in a while, AllHallowsDay.
We're all sick of hearing about WMD, but I find it peculiar that the Iraq war is often touted by Bush supporters as a war against terrorism, but not characterized as such initially.  I am not updating my talking points until I am convinced otherwise.  It was COLIN POWELL who first prominently asserted WMD, not the "lamestream" media.  It's not an assertion that should be swept under the rug at this late date.  Saddam Hussein was a fiend, got what he deserved, but nonetheless, governments often do what is expedient, like tolerating dictators.  Saddam Hussein not only persecuted Kurds, but also Islamic fundamentalists.  Ties to Al-Quaeda have not been proven; it's compelling that they flourish and delight in kidnapping and murdering our soldiers only after Saddam was toppled. 

None of you has any excuse for listening to these liars who hate Bush more than they love the truth. You want the truth, try listening to some actual soldiers and reporters at the front, and not those fools from the lamestream media sitting in their swanky hotels in the Green Zone and getting their reports from shady sources that almost invariably trace back to our enemies.
Here ya go, this three page excerpt is from Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez' book, Wiser In Battle; Sanchez was head of coalition forces and fought in Iraq.   

"In the meantime, hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars were unnecessarily spent, and worse yet, too many of our most precious military resource, our American soldiers, were unnecessarily wounded, maimed, and killed as a result. In my mind, this action by the Bush administration amounts to gross incompetence and dereliction of duty..."   

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1736831-1,00.html   (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1736831-1,00.html)


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: Andrew on May 21, 2008, 11:30:26 AM
Gents,

Let's please get away from any insults.  Again, debate and talking over issues is great, but once we start hurling insults then we start concentrating more on attacking the other person, rather than the merit of any points brought up.


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: Zapranoth on May 21, 2008, 11:40:56 AM
"Hey, Ripley.  What would you do with this thread?"

"I'd nuke the site from orbit.  Only way to be sure."

 :teddyr:



Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: lester1/2jr on May 21, 2008, 02:42:55 PM
andy-  I can't figure out what you are trying to say.

literally what are yoiu for or against?

"
Quote
interest would be a good thing if there was no inflation because inflation is unnatural and shouldn't exist, but on the other hand, people ignorantly buying high, selling low and messing up the market for themselves (while a few others get rich doing the opposite) is the way the world works? Nice contradictory and equally nonsensical points. "

??  those two things have absolutely nothing to do with each other.  inflation isn't caused economic growth. it's caused by the federal reserve literally inflating the currency.  in purest terms that is what inflation is.

my point about the lost decade was that there was no actual growth.  if you had a law against day trading, there would have been a flat line instead of dips and rips.  but the outcome would be largely the same.





so are you FOR a weak dollar? 


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: AndyC on May 21, 2008, 04:06:37 PM
andy-  I can't figure out what you are trying to say.

literally what are yoiu for or against?

"
Quote
interest would be a good thing if there was no inflation because inflation is unnatural and shouldn't exist, but on the other hand, people ignorantly buying high, selling low and messing up the market for themselves (while a few others get rich doing the opposite) is the way the world works? Nice contradictory and equally nonsensical points. "

??  those two things have absolutely nothing to do with each other.  inflation isn't caused economic growth. it's caused by the federal reserve literally inflating the currency.  in purest terms that is what inflation is.

my point about the lost decade was that there was no actual growth.  if you had a law against day trading, there would have been a flat line instead of dips and rips.  but the outcome would be largely the same.

so are you FOR a weak dollar? 

OK, this is going to cost me karma points, and probably get me a scolding from Andrew, but I just can't help myself. I will express my position in the simplest possible terms for you, Lester. Terms even you should be able to interpret without any misunderstanding.

I think you're full of s**t, and I wish you would shut the hell up. Is that clear enough for you?


Title: Re: "We must never appease terrorists!!"
Post by: Andrew on May 21, 2008, 04:17:15 PM
OK, this thread is done.