BF2S Forums The US in 2008

RAIMIUS wrote:

Agent, you make a good point there.  I was not trying to argue that the Constitution implies that Christianity is "the" religion, just the the founding fathers placed importance on religious values.

Agreed.  They were vary careful in their wording, but wanted to make sure that the exercise of religion was not trampled upon, yet prevent religion from becoming the institution of government.

My main point was to a previous poster.  I commented about conservatives whining that liberals want to remove references to God.  However, the area that was primarily in question was the pledge of allegience.  My adding that the part of about money was just to make the point.

One more point along the lines of religious values, they also valued free people that could, and would, think for themselves, and not simply follow blindly some religious dogma.

I really dont mind wiretappings myself, but I can see how criminals (like they should have any say) can be talking about illegal stuff and be caught by the government.  Or, people might misinterpret a conversation into thinking it was bad.  And last, a corrupt government might use this to tap into other people's speeches or ideas and take the ideas away from them before the original person has the chance to say it. 

This hardly effects me however it does seem weird to have people listen in to you if your having phone sex or just a weird conversation... (I dont need phone sex BTW, I just pictured like GWB listening into people in a dark room and hearing this strange eih eih eih GWB laugh)  wow that sounded really gay...

spacebandit72 wrote:

And if you don't thinjk Seria or Iran did'nt recieve what Sadam was hiding... you gotta be stupid.

Grammar police!

Out of all the typos in that post, let me point out one general, easy-to-remember law of the English language:

I before E except after C.

People tend to take written thoughts more seriously if they are presented in a reasonably respectable manner.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-06-26 21:05:52)

lol he negged me for calling him mr. poopy pants

Horseman 77 wrote:

CyberTough-GuyWhensoSafe wrote:

first of all ,anyone who refers to homosexual people as '(the) gays'  is either way in the closet or waay out to lunch.

FYI The Homosexuals and Lesbian Communities want to be called Gays. In the USA at least. They do not like the ( Medical or Scientific Terms ). They find it insulting, don't ask me why.

Faggot is the Medical term, and Candy Ass is the Scientific Term.

Marconius wrote:

So far, Bush has been caught red-handed breaking the law.  He claims that he can basically illegally wiretap Americans and invade their privacy as it is a "time of war."  Albeit he never had a formal Declaration of War approved from the Congress.  'Shock and Awe' lasted just long enough that he didn't have to present his Articles of War, and the resulting firefight in Iraq is still going on.

Hopefully the Impeachment process will start soon, but only if enough Republicans in the House will allow a call for it to pass.

My question to everyone is:

If the Republicans/Bush Administration think they can get away with anything now due to the US being at "war," what will happen if a Democrat gets elected in 2008?  Will they all back down and say, "Oh, no no no, we were wrong, we weren't supposed to do all of that as it was illegal at the time...so it looks like you Democrats can't do the same!"  Does anyone feel like there is something more sinister going on to ensure that Republicans can force another election to come out in favor of them?

stupied liberal

"Stupied liberal"...that's a FANTASTIC and PHENOMENAL response to the everpresent gravity of the growing situation that I posted quite some time ago.

As for electronic voting, I don't trust it farther than I can throw it...especially with the Diebold controversy.  I saw a Diebold truck driving around the city the other day and I just felt myself instantly get angry at them for being such tools.  I'll stick to the current voting system that we have in place in my district.  No punching, no electronic cards and voting machines, just a form in which you use a marker to complete an arrow pointing to your choices.  This is fed into a scantron style machine, which tallies the votes.

Losing ground aren't they? The American public is finally waking up and smelling the bullshit they are fed every day now, and have figured out that nothing the Rethugs have done in the last 6 years has benefited anyone but the top 1%.  The horseshit will soon be "flussssssshed" and they know it. After so much has come to light about the lies that led us to war and the incompetence in handling said war, some just keep hanging on to that "turd"  from the Bush administration's ass refusing to be "flussssssshed".

Feingold/Clark 2008!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ziggy_79x wrote:

Losing ground aren't they? The American public is finally waking up and smelling the bullshit they are fed every day now, and have figured out that nothing the Rethugs have done in the last 6 years has benefited anyone but the top 1%.  The horseshit will soon be "flussssssshed" and they know it. After so much has come to light about the lies that led us to war and the incompetence in handling said war, some just keep hanging on to that "turd"  from the Bush administration's ass refusing to be "flussssssshed".

Feingold/Clark 2008!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You might want to read some of Ikartis posts before you hold hands with him. Just my geuss.

Marconius wrote:

I'll ask a different question, actually...nevermind about my first one.

Well, due to the uncovering of the Abramoff scandal, Tom DeLay's money laundering scheme, Bush's wiretapping, the Bush Administration lying about the evidence they had drawn up against Iraq, and then invading/going against the UN...there have been a lot of plots to ensure their control over America.

Bush is defending his wiretapping ability and all of these "above the law" actions because we are in "a time of War."  When and if a Democrat comes into office in 2008, will the entangled agendas and corruption of the outgoing office and the incoming administration possibly spark a civil rift in the US? 
You can already see the rift in these forums; the Invasion of Iraq has gotten extremely partisan, and peoples' opinions have been getting more and more extreme about it.  What do you foresee happening to America if a Democrat gets elected in 2008?

nothing you've listed has ever been proven, just a bunch of accusations, I could get indicted for molesting a retirement home resident in North Dakota, even though I have never been there, doesn't mean I am guilty,  just more say-spray-and-pray accusations in the hopes that most people will confuse an accusation with someone being found guilty of something, unfortunately most of the posters on these forums do just that

Marconius wrote:

I'll ask a different question, actually...nevermind about my first one.

Well, due to the uncovering of the Abramoff scandal, Tom DeLay's money laundering scheme, Bush's wiretapping, the Bush Administration lying about the evidence they had drawn up against Iraq, and then invading/going against the UN...there have been a lot of plots to ensure their control over America.

Bush is defending his wiretapping ability and all of these "above the law" actions because we are in "a time of War."  When and if a Democrat comes into office in 2008, will the entangled agendas and corruption of the outgoing office and the incoming administration possibly spark a civil rift in the US? 
You can already see the rift in these forums; the Invasion of Iraq has gotten extremely partisan, and peoples' opinions have been getting more and more extreme about it.  What do you foresee happening to America if a Democrat gets elected in 2008?

My first question is how old are you?  If you go back in the last 15 years we have had some major problems with a democrat president.  Take the 8 years of Clinton.  Ruby Ridge, Clinton okayed the killing of people including children, oh yeah, and the small town of Waco, Clinton okayed that one as well, not to mention it took them a couple of months to get that mess over with.  and children died in that as well.  I really don't think bush is listening to my phone calls unless I am call a terrorist harboring nation.  and i really don't think Bush cares to hear about my wife calling me to pick up a box of tampons on my way home from work.  You liberals paint such a broad picture.  When I lived in Oklahoma City the murrah building was blown up.  They have over 40 eye witness accounts to state the muslims were involved but Clinton buried it.  When the bomb first went off they had several apb's out on middle eastern men, now grant it some over zealous okies killed a couple of gas station owners then the apb stopped.  You need to get out of the gay san fran sicko bath houses and take a shot in the mouth of reality.  Not that SanFran Cream you have been gurgling on.  It rotting your brain.

kr@cker wrote:

but they have proven themselves to be master statesman and don't flaunt their movie bio's as the reason for them to be credible

No, of course not.  That's why their nicknames are The Gipper, and The Governator.

*cough*

What?

kr@cker wrote:

Don't beleive they gave themselves those nicknames

True, but they are affectionate nicknames i.e. used by folks that probably voted for them.  As opposed to, say, "Ronald Raygun", or "that Austrian bastard".

The point is that their supporters' nicknames for them are both from roles they played in movies.  At least the Terminator is a fictional character.  The Gipper was actually a real guy -- George Gipp -- who Reagan just happened to play in that one movie.

kr@cker wrote:

and nowhere in those links do I see anything that says "vote for me cuz I starred in this!!"  as opposed to George Clooney harping about how much more in touch the Academy is with the world of socio-politics

Excerpt from above link:
The phrase "Win one for the Gipper" was later used as a political slogan by Ronald Reagan, who in 1940 portrayed Gipp in Knute Rockne, All American and was often referred to as "The Gipper". His most famous use of it was at the 1988 Republican National Convention when he told Vice President George Bush, "George. Go out there and win one for the Gipper."

As for Arnie, maybe it's not so much the acting as the bodybuilding that qualifies him to be Governor of California?  Seriously, though.  What else is he known for?  During the election campaign, his movies were on TV nearly every day.  Not to mention clips from them on the news every day.  On the news!  Every day!

kr@cker wrote:

the voting public has a short memory, and unfortunately are prone to be easily swayed by popular media and entertainment figures that tell them "you think this because I do and I was in a movie once"

If it's true, it's true.  You can either say you don't believe this any more, or admit that the Republicans basically invented "celebrity activists".