Which would make sense if at some point America had fanatically followed a party called the War Criminals. As it is, the statement is being made on the basis that he went to war illegally, and lied. Even if the two comments are comparable in absurdity, as you say, the basis is entirely incomparable.
lowing wrote:
I never said 1 thing about your personal life. You deemed questions regarding your lack of readable concern over the endeavors that yours and my countrymen are undertaking, and clear readable concern over the treatment of our enemies as a personal nature. That is a new guideline for describing personal. What does that tell me?UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
Again, being a personal question there is no need to answer that question to take part in the debate. But I'll indulge you one last time: It seems like something I've said gave you the impression that I wouldn't batter an intruder into unconciousness if they broke into my house. That is not true. You also seem under the impression that I am against all forms of violence in all circumstances. That is not true, I simply don't believe violence the best solution to a problem, and should not be used it is the last and only resort and is permitted by the relevant law, be it international (in the case of wars) or national (in the case of self-defence).lowing wrote:
Your defensive posture speaks volumes with regard to your loyalties,along your lack of a real response other than, "none of your fucking business" and "shut the fuck up"....LOL quite pathetic. ]
Are you willing to protect your baby as a new father, or does your pacifism prevent that?
As far as the hippie thing goes, I got you and Marconious mixed up, but I am sure you could understand how easy that would be.
My defensive posture might be because my personal life is none of your fucking business and not relevant to the discussion.
lowing wrote:
Are you willing to protect your baby as a new father, or does your pacifism prevent that?
Nope he didn't, the war started 15 years ago, the breech of the cease fire agreement was solely the responsibility of Iraq. SorryBubbalo wrote:
Which would make sense if at some point America had fanatically followed a party called the War Criminals. As it is, the statement is being made on the basis that he went to war illegally, and lied. Even if the two comments are comparable in absurdity, as you say, the basis is entirely incomparable.
Put it in context pal, with the point I was trying to make. nice try thoughUnOriginalNuttah wrote:
lowing wrote:
I never said 1 thing about your personal life. You deemed questions regarding your lack of readable concern over the endeavors that yours and my countrymen are undertaking, and clear readable concern over the treatment of our enemies as a personal nature. That is a new guideline for describing personal. What does that tell me?UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
Again, being a personal question there is no need to answer that question to take part in the debate. But I'll indulge you one last time: It seems like something I've said gave you the impression that I wouldn't batter an intruder into unconciousness if they broke into my house. That is not true. You also seem under the impression that I am against all forms of violence in all circumstances. That is not true, I simply don't believe violence the best solution to a problem, and should not be used it is the last and only resort and is permitted by the relevant law, be it international (in the case of wars) or national (in the case of self-defence).
My defensive posture might be because my personal life is none of your fucking business and not relevant to the discussion.lowing wrote:
Are you willing to protect your baby as a new father, or does your pacifism prevent that?
1) Regardless of whether or not the basis is correct, the basis is completely different to the basis by which you might assume all Germans (or in this case Austrians) are Nazis
2) Did you read the second link?
3) If the US went to war with UN backing originally, and now doesn't have that backing, how can you argue that it's the same war?
2) Did you read the second link?
3) If the US went to war with UN backing originally, and now doesn't have that backing, how can you argue that it's the same war?
Last edited by Bubbalo (2006-06-18 08:45:31)
Nah more like for thinking and telling people they can police the world in the name of 'Democracy' While all the time grabbing and controlling as much of the worlds energy supplies in the name of peace, to keep the fat cats rich, the rest of the world under as much of their influence as possible, and fat fuckin Americans in their SUVs so they didnt have to use the fat legs they were given by their oh so merciful and forgiving God they always wibble on about.lowing wrote:
oh ya mean that it is a violation oh human rights to treat our enemies like prisoners instead of putting them up in the Hyatt Regency hotel??Bubbalo wrote:
Perhaps gross abuse of human rights? Just a theory.lowing wrote:
and what actions might that be? please tell me so I can beat you over the head with your own post.
Roll on the Global Economic Meltdown. Go, if you don't know about the subject and look up what the PETRODOLLAR is.
All Oil is sold in dollars, and is essentially the basis of the American economy.
If any other country starts to sell Oil in something other than dollars, such as Euro, America has then to sell dollars to get Euro to buy Oil, and BANG goes the basis of the economy.
Two seemingly little known facts:
1. Saddam started to sell Oil from hios own exchange in Iraq in EURO, in I think it was the year or so before Iraq got invaded, makes ya wonder why the WMD were suddenly LIED about (think thats pretty accepted now). Think he sold 3 billion EUROs worth of which 2 billion was bought by America IN EURO that they had to sell dollars to get. That was not liked, so funnily enough Iraq gets invaded. Fair enough Saddam is out of power, Iraqs going through some shitty times, but will pull through eventually I'm sure. But I reckon he would still be there if it was not, in a large part, due to his pretty direct attack on the US economy and the Petrodollar.
2. Last I heard IRAN is in the process of setting up a similar exchange and has invited other oil producing countries around the world to sell their oil through the Iranian exchange in EURO. NOT MUCH ABOUT THAT ON THE NEWS LATELY IS THERE? Quite a bit about how those dodgy looking blokes over in that country that does nothing but produce terrorists are trying to build their very own nuclear weapon. I remember the first story I heard about that had American polititians ranting that "We don't need to use force" I thought WTF?! Who the hell was talking about using it?! where the hell did this story pop out of?!
Christ ALMIGHTY call me a cynic, but.......duh, uh huh Geeeeoorge I fink vere mite be sumpfink goin on!!!!
Go look it up, give yerself a better view of 'The Big Picture'
If we really wanted to control all the oil in the world, we would have kept it after WW2 and again 15 years ago. If we were war mongers hell bent on world domination we would have already done it. But we go to war to fight FOR everyone else and we are the bad guys.I'll tell ya I don't like the US being the world police either and if I had it my way I would sit back and watch all of you get what you deserve while I sit back and sip margaritas. I am sick to death of the euro trash that gets on here and rants about American involvement in the world.( unless of course it is your country needing shit from us at the time)TheFlipTop wrote:
Nah more like for thinking and telling people they can police the world in the name of 'Democracy' While all the time grabbing and controlling as much of the worlds energy supplies in the name of peace, to keep the fat cats rich, the rest of the world under as much of their influence as possible, and fat fuckin Americans in their SUVs so they didnt have to use the fat legs they were given by their oh so merciful and forgiving God they always wibble on about.lowing wrote:
oh ya mean that it is a violation oh human rights to treat our enemies like prisoners instead of putting them up in the Hyatt Regency hotel??Bubbalo wrote:
Perhaps gross abuse of human rights? Just a theory.
Roll on the Global Economic Meltdown. Go, if you don't know about the subject and look up what the PETRODOLLAR is.
All Oil is sold in dollars, and is essentially the basis of the American economy.
If any other country starts to sell Oil in something other than dollars, such as Euro, America has then to sell dollars to get Euro to buy Oil, and BANG goes the basis of the economy.
Two seemingly little known facts:
1. Saddam started to sell Oil from hios own exchange in Iraq in EURO, in I think it was the year or so before Iraq got invaded, makes ya wonder why the WMD were suddenly LIED about (think thats pretty accepted now). Think he sold 3 billion EUROs worth of which 2 billion was bought by America IN EURO that they had to sell dollars to get. That was not liked, so funnily enough Iraq gets invaded. Fair enough Saddam is out of power, Iraqs going through some shitty times, but will pull through eventually I'm sure. But I reckon he would still be there if it was not, in a large part, due to his pretty direct attack on the US economy and the Petrodollar.
2. Last I heard IRAN is in the process of setting up a similar exchange and has invited other oil producing countries around the world to sell their oil through the Iranian exchange in EURO. NOT MUCH ABOUT THAT ON THE NEWS LATELY IS THERE? Quite a bit about how those dodgy looking blokes over in that country that does nothing but produce terrorists are trying to build their very own nuclear weapon. I remember the first story I heard about that had American polititians ranting that "We don't need to use force" I thought WTF?! Who the hell was talking about using it?! where the hell did this story pop out of?!
Christ ALMIGHTY call me a cynic, but.......duh, uh huh Geeeeoorge I fink vere mite be sumpfink goin on!!!!
Go look it up, give yerself a better view of 'The Big Picture'
Last edited by lowing (2006-06-18 10:27:46)
Be a Libertarian.
Your argument has become a bit raggedy here mate, you've contradicted yourself and missed my point entirely. As I said, it was a point of order - you referred to these people as prisoners of war when they quite clearly are not. Don't call them POWs when, according to the USA, they are not; that was all I was saying - not really that inflammatory huh?lowing wrote:
I am well aware of our countries stand regarding these people. They were captured during battles, the reason we are not declaring them POW's is because POW's deserve a certain amount of respect even though they are your enemy. I said it before, they are being treated a far cry better than our soldiers have been treated as well as the civilians that fall into their hands. Please do NOT expect any tears for them from me. There really is nothing you can tell me that is going to make me give a shit about the filth held in Gitmo. The longer they are held, the safer we all are. Any word on how many have been let go only to be caught or killed in battle again??
I wonder if your lack of response to my torture segment is due in part that you agree these people have not been tortured in any real sense.
Another point of order: The reasons you are not declaring them as POWs are many and manifold. As regards the Geneva Convention it quite clearly states that those who do not make any effort to identify themselves as members of an army or indeed make it their business to conduct warfare in a guerrilla fashion are NOT covered by the term POW so you are within the letter (though not perhaps the spirit) of the rules on this point. They are not considered to have been engaged in a legitimate battle or for a legitimate army when we captured them. Thats why we can send them to Guantanamo bay; not just because they don't deserve our respect for some subjective reason.
At no point did I try to tell you anything to "make you give a shit" about the people in Guantanamo bay or ask you to shed any tears. Just because I am picking you up on one point does not mean I oppose you on all points or want terrorists to go free. It is possible to take a balanced view on these things - maybe growing up in a country which was the frequent target of politically motivated terrorist attacks helps you build that skill. World politics is not all black and white and maybe the sooner the USA wakes up to that point the safer we will all be eh?
As for agreeing that they have not been tortured in any real sense, please don't put words into my mouth. With limited information coming out of the place it is difficult to know what is true and what is false - either from the left or the right biased sources. You don't know what goes on in there any more than I do and so it comes down to gut instinct and personal belief really doesn't it? I don't want terrorists on the loose at all but neither do I want to see human rights grossly violated. Just because they act like murderous barbaric bastards does not mean we should too. I don't want to live my life by the same rules they do and I'm sure you don't either.
My main problem with Guantanamo bay is that while previously torture and infinite detention were carried on behind closed doors you guys have decided to go all Hollywood on us and let everyone know about what you are doing. It was the biggest PR boost you could have given the Al-Qaeda recruitment drive which is a real fucking shame because it's the last thing anyone could have wanted. Keeping it hush hush would have been much better, it seems like a miscalculation to me and it's a real shame because it makes us look like the bad guys which I don't believe we are.
That is not what he said at all.Bubbalo wrote:
Sure, but POWs are expected to be released once the war is ended. If you're still holding them, they must be criminals rather than POWs, and as such get a trial.lowing wrote:
Oh I forgot, humiliation is torture now.
War prisoners do not get trialsSo only people who have been president can criticise the president? Brilliant logic there?Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Don't misquote me. I just put it how it is. So many people know almost nothing about the facts, have absolutely zero first hand experience with government affairs, and form the most biased opinions on Bush I have ever seen. Kinda like you.
And seriously, you trust this man?
Ok I will send you some old underwear. Have a party with it. Then share it if you can bear to part with it.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
Article 5.lowing wrote:
Ya mean the UN recognizes underwear being put on someones head as torture? Show me, I gotta read this.Bubbalo wrote:
Actually, according to UN definitions, several common practices are torture.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Or don't you consider it degrading? We could do a little test, a bit like you suggested when you asked me to pick between being directed to pray north or having my head cut off. So here's a hypothetical test to determine whether underwear on the head falls into the 'degrading treatment' category:
Why don't I tie you up and put the dirtiest skidmarked underwear from HorseManBearPig's laundry basket over your face, and you can tell me if you think it's degrading or not?
I supose It will have to do until you qualify for a Credit card and can finaly have real sex because lets be realistic, it wont happen for you otherwise.
Note to all :
Look at how Vile and foul mouthed these people have become. Read his other posts too. They say a light bulb is the brightest just before it burns out. It will be fun to read this post a year or two from now and see " History's Losers " were in their Death throws.
Till then double flush all your " UnoriganalNutters " just to make sure they stay down.
Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-06-18 11:47:10)
You're pathetic. So is the rest of the of the posters in here. I've gotten 4 negative karma for simply stating the facts. Clearly an internet forum devoted the a game is not the best place to find intelligent people to discuss politics with. Good luck to all of you in your endevors.Bubbalo wrote:
Sure, but POWs are expected to be released once the war is ended. If you're still holding them, they must be criminals rather than POWs, and as such get a trial.lowing wrote:
Oh I forgot, humiliation is torture now.
War prisoners do not get trialsSo only people who have been president can criticise the president? Brilliant logic there?Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Don't misquote me. I just put it how it is. So many people know almost nothing about the facts, have absolutely zero first hand experience with government affairs, and form the most biased opinions on Bush I have ever seen. Kinda like you.
And seriously, you trust this man?
only the facts according to you
The mission accomplished banner was not for the war but for the crew of the ship...wasn't it ?lowing wrote:
I don't recall the war being over..did I miss something??.......Or are you going to try and hang your arguement on that "mission accomomplished" thing?Bubbalo wrote:
Sure, but POWs are expected to be released once the war is ended. If you're still holding them, they must be criminals rather than POWs, and as such get a trial.lowing wrote:
Oh I forgot, humiliation is torture now.
War prisoners do not get trialsSo only people who have been president can criticise the president? Brilliant logic there?Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Don't misquote me. I just put it how it is. So many people know almost nothing about the facts, have absolutely zero first hand experience with government affairs, and form the most biased opinions on Bush I have ever seen. Kinda like you.
And seriously, you trust this man?
Oh no! Someone gave me -karma. I'm calling the UN, this is torture!
My response to your post was not meant to be inflammatory on my part, if you took it as such i apologize.nikki_lighthouse wrote:
Your argument has become a bit raggedy here mate, you've contradicted yourself and missed my point entirely. As I said, it was a point of order - you referred to these people as prisoners of war when they quite clearly are not. Don't call them POWs when, according to the USA, they are not; that was all I was saying - not really that inflammatory huh?lowing wrote:
I am well aware of our countries stand regarding these people. They were captured during battles, the reason we are not declaring them POW's is because POW's deserve a certain amount of respect even though they are your enemy. I said it before, they are being treated a far cry better than our soldiers have been treated as well as the civilians that fall into their hands. Please do NOT expect any tears for them from me. There really is nothing you can tell me that is going to make me give a shit about the filth held in Gitmo. The longer they are held, the safer we all are. Any word on how many have been let go only to be caught or killed in battle again??
I wonder if your lack of response to my torture segment is due in part that you agree these people have not been tortured in any real sense.
Another point of order: The reasons you are not declaring them as POWs are many and manifold. As regards the Geneva Convention it quite clearly states that those who do not make any effort to identify themselves as members of an army or indeed make it their business to conduct warfare in a guerrilla fashion are NOT covered by the term POW so you are within the letter (though not perhaps the spirit) of the rules on this point. They are not considered to have been engaged in a legitimate battle or for a legitimate army when we captured them. Thats why we can send them to Guantanamo bay; not just because they don't deserve our respect for some subjective reason.
At no point did I try to tell you anything to "make you give a shit" about the people in Guantanamo bay or ask you to shed any tears. Just because I am picking you up on one point does not mean I oppose you on all points or want terrorists to go free. It is possible to take a balanced view on these things - maybe growing up in a country which was the frequent target of politically motivated terrorist attacks helps you build that skill. World politics is not all black and white and maybe the sooner the USA wakes up to that point the safer we will all be eh?
As for agreeing that they have not been tortured in any real sense, please don't put words into my mouth. With limited information coming out of the place it is difficult to know what is true and what is false - either from the left or the right biased sources. You don't know what goes on in there any more than I do and so it comes down to gut instinct and personal belief really doesn't it? I don't want terrorists on the loose at all but neither do I want to see human rights grossly violated. Just because they act like murderous barbaric bastards does not mean we should too. I don't want to live my life by the same rules they do and I'm sure you don't either.
My main problem with Guantanamo bay is that while previously torture and infinite detention were carried on behind closed doors you guys have decided to go all Hollywood on us and let everyone know about what you are doing. It was the biggest PR boost you could have given the Al-Qaeda recruitment drive which is a real fucking shame because it's the last thing anyone could have wanted. Keeping it hush hush would have been much better, it seems like a miscalculation to me and it's a real shame because it makes us look like the bad guys which I don't believe we are.
I call them POW's for a lack of a better term. In my humble opinion to call them POW's is an insult to any POW's past or present, really.
Bottom line for me is, regarding human rights, I can sleep quite well at night with Gitmo. My country is safer with these people under glass. When I say I do not give a shit about those in Gitmo. I am not coining a cliche'. I really do not give 1 shit about them. I will give the authorities there whatever latitude they need to uphold the safety and security of our land, period.
My country and countrymen and women were targeted and attacked and killed by people that has the support of those held in Gitmo. Now I will coin a phrase, if you play with the bull you WILL get the horns. No apologies.
more spray and pray conspiracy theories, how many different topics did they cover on that one small website? how much proof of their own theories was offered in contrast to what has already been established?BN wrote:
maybe he just read this, who knows...kr@cker wrote:
What? A personal friend of Quaddafi and Hussein sympathizer doesn't like something about the US? you're kiddingBN wrote:
oohh, I am not the only one to think this
http://today.reuters.com/news/ArticleNe … HAIDER.xml
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/lieofthecentury.html
just take one small thing like colin powell's naming the wrong satellite or showing fuzzy photos to the public and it can easily be countered with a philosophy i call "common sense", you don't show your enemies what you're capable of and you don't give them the names of the satellites you are using to watch them
him and cheeny should be castrated....
ya lets impeach him so we will pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and let all those suicide bomber jihad fuckers come to the US and crash more planes into buildings and kill more people until we see that Bush was right to take action against it.... fukkin dumbasses
Conspiracy theories like...kr@cker wrote:
more spray and pray conspiracy theories,
-Powell claimed that the Iraqis had 8,500 liters (2245 gallons) of Anthrax. None was ever found.
-Powell claimed that Iraq was building long-range remote drones specifically designed to carry biological weapons. The only drones found were short-range reconnaissance drones
How is that a conspiracy? THEY ARE LIES and they have been caught out. It's just easy for you to dismiss this as leftist conspiracy you dont have to address the FACTS!
They all lied and a lot have people are now dead. I cannot believe you still support these idiots. But its typical right wing head-in-sand, support our Prez no matter what. Or maybe you just don’t have the guts to say "hey, we were wrong"
Grow some balls and be a man about it.
thanks for the negative one... anonymous..
guys you are missing the point. Put aside gitmo and that shit for a second, even though it is extremely important and a sensetive issue. The real problem is that YOUR rights and whtnot have changed as citizens. I'm not talking about shit that applies to terrorists at gitmo. I'm talking about the fact that it is a practice ground, training, for bigger detainee camps. Terrorist falls outside any definitions of human or civil rights.
This is what you should be scared of: You too can be a terrorist, by doing nothing more than wanting to know what's happening. You too could be next into one of those camps, there is SERIOUSLY no legal distinction. It's up to homeland security to DECIDE who terrorists are regardless IF they are or not.
Maybe your brother is a terrorist
your mother
your girlfriend/boyfriend whatever
co worker
person you see on the street
your neighbors
mom/pop who own the goddamn deli are terrorists, because they don't approve of fascism do you see what's happening?
If you think that Gitmo is bad, it's true, because that's what the American public, you, are in for. Would you cry then if you were a terrorist being told to piss yourself and jack off in a corner while some Aryan laughs at you on top of tall leather boots?? They can and will use the EXACT treatment on you. And guess what. When they do they don't even have to write your name down. Some of those Gitmo 'terrorists' could very well be American citizens. Think about that.
Does anyone else see what the fuck I'm saying here? This is the beginning of a huge problem, and precedent has been set. IT"S LEGAL NOW. Nothing will change what's happening.
This is not a theory, it is a fact.
Why don't you as well refute the existence of the holocaust, since it too is only a 'theory'
Why don't you then make your country into another fascist tyrancy because the bill of rights-
it's another conspiracy theory.
Get a fucking grip, and before the next guy wants to use one liners, at least follow it with some fucking proof that I'm wrong. I dare you to find that proof, and tell me who published it. STUFOO
This is what you should be scared of: You too can be a terrorist, by doing nothing more than wanting to know what's happening. You too could be next into one of those camps, there is SERIOUSLY no legal distinction. It's up to homeland security to DECIDE who terrorists are regardless IF they are or not.
Maybe your brother is a terrorist
your mother
your girlfriend/boyfriend whatever
co worker
person you see on the street
your neighbors
mom/pop who own the goddamn deli are terrorists, because they don't approve of fascism do you see what's happening?
If you think that Gitmo is bad, it's true, because that's what the American public, you, are in for. Would you cry then if you were a terrorist being told to piss yourself and jack off in a corner while some Aryan laughs at you on top of tall leather boots?? They can and will use the EXACT treatment on you. And guess what. When they do they don't even have to write your name down. Some of those Gitmo 'terrorists' could very well be American citizens. Think about that.
Does anyone else see what the fuck I'm saying here? This is the beginning of a huge problem, and precedent has been set. IT"S LEGAL NOW. Nothing will change what's happening.
This is not a theory, it is a fact.
Why don't you as well refute the existence of the holocaust, since it too is only a 'theory'
Why don't you then make your country into another fascist tyrancy because the bill of rights-
it's another conspiracy theory.
Get a fucking grip, and before the next guy wants to use one liners, at least follow it with some fucking proof that I'm wrong. I dare you to find that proof, and tell me who published it. STUFOO
who is we?lowing wrote:
If we really wanted to control all the oil in the world, we would have kept it after WW2 and again 15 years ago. If we were war mongers hell bent on world domination we would have already done it. But we go to war to fight FOR everyone else and we are the bad guys.I'll tell ya I don't like the US being the world police either and if I had it my way I would sit back and watch all of you get what you deserve while I sit back and sip margaritas. I am sick to death of the euro trash that gets on here and rants about American involvement in the world.( unless of course it is your country needing shit from us at the time)TheFlipTop wrote:
Nah more like for thinking and telling people they can police the world in the name of 'Democracy' While all the time grabbing and controlling as much of the worlds energy supplies in the name of peace, to keep the fat cats rich, the rest of the world under as much of their influence as possible, and fat fuckin Americans in their SUVs so they didnt have to use the fat legs they were given by their oh so merciful and forgiving God they always wibble on about.lowing wrote:
oh ya mean that it is a violation oh human rights to treat our enemies like prisoners instead of putting them up in the Hyatt Regency hotel??
Roll on the Global Economic Meltdown. Go, if you don't know about the subject and look up what the PETRODOLLAR is.
All Oil is sold in dollars, and is essentially the basis of the American economy.
If any other country starts to sell Oil in something other than dollars, such as Euro, America has then to sell dollars to get Euro to buy Oil, and BANG goes the basis of the economy.
Two seemingly little known facts:
1. Saddam started to sell Oil from hios own exchange in Iraq in EURO, in I think it was the year or so before Iraq got invaded, makes ya wonder why the WMD were suddenly LIED about (think thats pretty accepted now). Think he sold 3 billion EUROs worth of which 2 billion was bought by America IN EURO that they had to sell dollars to get. That was not liked, so funnily enough Iraq gets invaded. Fair enough Saddam is out of power, Iraqs going through some shitty times, but will pull through eventually I'm sure. But I reckon he would still be there if it was not, in a large part, due to his pretty direct attack on the US economy and the Petrodollar.
2. Last I heard IRAN is in the process of setting up a similar exchange and has invited other oil producing countries around the world to sell their oil through the Iranian exchange in EURO. NOT MUCH ABOUT THAT ON THE NEWS LATELY IS THERE? Quite a bit about how those dodgy looking blokes over in that country that does nothing but produce terrorists are trying to build their very own nuclear weapon. I remember the first story I heard about that had American polititians ranting that "We don't need to use force" I thought WTF?! Who the hell was talking about using it?! where the hell did this story pop out of?!
Christ ALMIGHTY call me a cynic, but.......duh, uh huh Geeeeoorge I fink vere mite be sumpfink goin on!!!!
Go look it up, give yerself a better view of 'The Big Picture'
you know the balance of power was shifting after WW2 right up until JFK was shot?
Ever since then, however, 2 things have not changed.
If you think your country has been polarized you're right, but that's only been for the last 20 years or so.
Things are m u c h different in a law stance trust me, and they are changing faster now than ever before in American history. While you sit back and watch, be ready for your gov't to include you in the massacre if you so much as peep the wrong tone of voice. Good Luck.
It took a while for the Bush family to get where it is today.
The proof is in the pudding...Spumantiii wrote:
ANGRY ANGRY ANGRY ANGRY ANGRY
Get a fucking grip, and before the next guy wants to use one liners, at least follow it with some fucking proof that I'm wrong. I dare you to find that proof, and tell me who published it. STUFOO
yes so he can have Airspace cleared for the impending attackSmitty5613 wrote:
ya lets impeach him so we will pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and let all those suicide bomber jihad fuckers come to the US and crash more planes into buildings and kill more people until we see that Bush was right to take action against it.... fukkin dumbasses
yes so he can profit from the attacks
yes so all those jihading crazies can hijack a plane, suicide bomb, and then be talking to relatives on the phone in the next days
yes because flight 93 the plane, the same plane that supposedly crashed, is still in service.
yes, so we can hide under beds inside plastic bags because 85000 tons of anthrax is headed this way
yes, because you need to use nuclear weapons on Haji who doesn't even own a garage.
Yes, because you like it when people lie to you.