|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Nov 8th, 2004 12:17 PM | ||||
| Ant10708 | Because no one really gives a shit what conus has to say. | |||
| Nov 8th, 2004 11:30 AM | ||||
| ItalianStereotype |
Quote:
|
|||
| Nov 8th, 2004 10:24 AM | ||||
| mburbank |
The bulk of your post simply affirms one of the things I said, you're way smarter than you were posting. I said so when you first came here, I said I liked your site. It is possible to be funny and support what you really think at the same time. Try it. The only thing you said I want to respond to is: " But, the fact is - there are manymore non-religious, non-"redneck" people like me thatvoted than you care to admit, and it's unfortunate you have as negative a view of Americans as you do." Some of my best friends vooted for Bush. I'm having two of them to Thanksgiving dinner at my house. Neither one of them are Rednecks, and one just got back from serving in Iraq. There are not enough fundamentalists in the country to elect Bush, but there were enough to throw the election to him. I think you, and my friends, made a grievous mistake. I disagree with you on economy and security issues, but that's not my point. You and my friends think you can overlook his arrogance and his fundamentalism because you think he's doing a good job. I think that's dangerous. I think arrogance and fundamentalism are a dangerous as hell combo platter. I think W. thinks he's infallible and God's instrument on earth. I think the most posionous part of America (fundamentalists) just sent the message that if future republicans want to stay in power (should we survive that long) they will have to do what fundamentalists tell them to do,m or they won't get elected, or reelected. I think by the time this term is over, the Supreme court will have young fundamentalists on it, and they will be there for a very long time. I think this is a hell of a lot of danger to overlook EVEN IF you thought he did a swell job, and I think it's naive to overlook it. And if the defficit is reduced at all in four years, let alone cut in half I'll eat my hat. I think it will be lots bigger, but we'll see. |
|||
| Nov 8th, 2004 02:28 AM | ||||
| Perndog | Monet and Van Gogh have nothing on ancient Babylon. | |||
| Nov 8th, 2004 12:18 AM | ||||
| Alive |
I dunno, walk into some van gogh or monet art gallery with a bomb strapped to your chest and feel the negotiating leverage you now have.. |
|||
| Nov 7th, 2004 11:28 PM | ||||
| Perndog |
Since it sounds like most of those Iraqis are better off dead, someone should just nuke them and get the whole issue done with. Oh, but then they'd destroy all of those marvelous antiquities. There's a riddle for you. Why are the safe and (relatively peaceful) places in Europe, east Asia (by this I mean Japan and half of China), and America instead of in the cradle of civilization? Why can't all the wars be somewhere like California that doesn't have any ancient history to destroy? Oh, and it's not anyone like Bush's fault America got attacked, it's all those homos and atheists and hippies in the ACLU. 
|
|||
| Nov 7th, 2004 06:34 PM | ||||
| conus |
Quote:
|
|||
| Nov 7th, 2004 07:00 AM | ||||
| HNICPantitude |
Burbank, you have an amzing ability to conveniently know when I'm being sarcastic, only when you don't disagree with me. If you honestly believe I think England "a lesser country," than you don't actually read my posts. I have made it a point to overdo my "dislike" of foreigners here, as somewhat of an alter-ego to deliberately irritate very specific members on these threads, because I enjoy their comeback insults. If you haven't been able to read into that, allow me to tell you who they are. AChimp, FS and Dole. I hold absolutely nothing against Canada, Netherlands (FS may not even be from there), and absolutely not England, which I have admired and studied since I was in 8th grade (20 years ago). As for my arguments, I honestly do not believe I am as right wing as you seem to communicate in your arguments with me. I dislike being made out as Pat Buchanan, or John Lithgow in Footloose, as much as I'm sure you would dislike being compared to Michael Moore. My beliefs are very far left of the examples you use against me. But, thats the nature of argument on these boards... and don't say it's not, because when I first explored beyons General Blabber in December 2002, I tried stating my position clearly, to no avail. I was immediately verbally assaulted with a barrage of Right Wing Hitlereque comparisons, which as you've seen, I could give a shit about. I can take a beating just as well as I can dish it out. So in an effort to clearly state my position more clearly, one final time: I am fundamentally much more libertarian than I am Republican. Where I share some views with the Republican Party, my beliefs are much more akin to the Libertarian platform. I also consider myself to be a Conststutional constructionist. Why, then, would I not have voted for Michael Badnarik? 1. It might sound cliche, but my vote would have been wasted. The U.S. is, as unfortunate as it may seem, a two party country. 2. I approve of the job George Bush has done. I believe, whether anyone here likes it or not, that he has done an excellent job in reclaiming the economy post 9-11. I believe he has done a great job in encouraging small business as well as large. He has a well rounded, and realistic position on economic issues currently facing America. He will, in my opinion, continue to encourage entrepeneurialism and smaller local/regional businesses to form, grow and function. I do not believe the Democratic party is any longer a party that can realistically make this statement. Small business is the foundation for this country, and always has been. Democrats, as far as I can interpret from their very poorly communicated message, will destroy these small businesses by taxing them out of existence, as the fight for the "working man." 3. I believe we were right in attacking Iraq. How can a Libertarian possibly believe that? a.) Because of the same organization many democrats fall back on so easily. The United Nations was placed in charge of controlling Iraq. They failed so miserabley, it can not be posted in one message. Everything that organization did, in regards to Iraq, was in direct contradiction to themselves. They issued Resolution after Resolution after Resolution. They issued ultimatums. They negotiated. They threatened. THEY repeatedly comlained that resolutions were being violated. In situations, such as these, there MUST be consequence for actions and crimes commited by countries that behave like this, or we risk much greater deterioration of regions, and a larger scale threat in the long run. Were there WMDs? I don't know, and neither does anyone on these boards. I personally believe there were and they were moved to Syria. That is one opinion, and happens in my mind, to be the most reasonable. Maybe there werent. Regardless, there was intent to acquire WMDs. Do I believe those weapons would be used on the United States. Nope - I honestly dont. But, they would have been used on Iran and/or Israel. The results of that would have been horrific, and launched this world into a war much larger than this. Do I believe Iraq knowingly harbored terrorists and/or funded their organizations. Yes and yes. Saddam Hussein stood much to benefit by these organiztions harming this country as well as Europe, and turning attention elsewhere. Beyond that, he was a complete megalomaniac, and hated Europe and America. Had the United Nations acted as a united front, and followed through with consequences of these repeated 16 UN Resolutions, we may have been able to avrt this war all together. But, in my opinion, bribery, corrupt business deals, and animosty of each other caused various countries to balk, and none to actually address the issue at hand. As for the members that did balk - France, Russia and Germany - they were number 1, 2 and 3, respectively, countries that had the largest revenues from deals with Iraq, most of which were in violation of sanctions. The United States was number 48. Do I want to be in Iraq - nope. D I believe we did the right thing - absolutely. 4. I have various issues I cannot support that the Libertarian party believes. For instance I do believe in the legalization of drugs. However, I believe legalization of narcotics is absolutely wrong. I also believe it is necesary to keep certain federal programs and departments in place, and that the Conststution can not be taken literally in the sense of Defense and roads being the only responsibility of federal government. ________________________________ I believe the current state of the Democratic party has a more extremist view to the left of center than the Republican party does to the right. So you can continue to throw names out as often as you'd like when you want to argue, and I will return with equally, if not greater overblown statements. But, the fact is - there are manymore non-religious, non-"redneck" people like me thatvoted than you care to admit, and it's unfortunate you have as negative a view of Americans as you do. |
|||
| Nov 6th, 2004 11:37 PM | ||||
| ScruU2wice |
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
| Nov 6th, 2004 10:18 PM | ||||
| Perndog | Nah, Jeb's up in '08. | |||
| Nov 6th, 2004 09:53 PM | ||||
| Ant10708 | Nevermind you're right. | |||
| Nov 6th, 2004 09:42 PM | ||||
| Immortal Goat |
Quote:
|
|||
| Nov 6th, 2004 08:53 PM | ||||
| Ant10708 | Are you sure? I thought they added that you couldn't run more than two consecutive terms. | |||
| Nov 6th, 2004 08:03 PM | ||||
| davinxtk |
Quote:
|
|||
| Nov 6th, 2004 06:27 PM | ||||
| Perndog |
Because we live in a society where it's possible to jump from one economic level to another. And because an awful lot of them don't know what they're talking about. |
|||
| Nov 6th, 2004 03:43 PM | ||||
| ScruU2wice | I don't see how any middle class people can defend conservative fiscal policy... | |||
| Nov 6th, 2004 10:15 AM | ||||
| conus |
Quote:
A large percentage of Americans are simply no good. They're as self-centered as infants and spend much of thir lives rationalizing their positions. It's not surprising. The country was built on a rotten foundation. It was founded by intolerant religious fanatics and murderous profiteers. Read Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter. That's America. |
|||
| Nov 6th, 2004 07:45 AM | ||||
| mburbank |
Pantydude, while you were gone I'd sort of forgotten what a jerk you are. Don't you feel stupid saying 'lesser country'? What are you, twelve? Oooh, oooh, USA #1! Girl Pantydude, tell me in person there's more to your husband than just being a deliberately irritating tool. Wait, you don't have to tell me, I've seen it myself from time to time. What is it with you that you seem to value being the human equivalent of heat rash when you have other things to offfer? What is it with the Steryotypical Republican mindset that you seem to actually value dimwitedness, like being an asshole automatically makes you authentic and genuine? |
|||
| Nov 6th, 2004 06:16 AM | ||||
| Dole |
Quote:
|
|||
| Nov 6th, 2004 06:13 AM | ||||
| Ant10708 |
Quote:
|
|||
| Nov 6th, 2004 05:12 AM | ||||
| FS | In the US, does there exist any sort of trend among women where they hope Hillary will run, regardless of her political agenda? With the attention paid to the election overseas here, I've heard a lot of women express the hope that she will, solely because she's a girl. | |||
| Nov 6th, 2004 04:04 AM | ||||
| Big Papa Goat | HILLARY '08! | |||
| Nov 5th, 2004 07:20 PM | ||||
| Perndog |
Don't worry. The intelligent and capable individuals are the ones who REALLY have the power. They pull the strings of the public politicians. Of course, it's an open question whether you would agree with their agenda or values if you knew them. |
|||
| Nov 5th, 2004 05:47 PM | ||||
| Immortal Goat |
Because Clinton can't run again.
|
|||
| Nov 5th, 2004 05:13 PM | ||||
| Strapping Young Lad | Actually, what I want to know is, why George Bush and John Kerry were the two choices for president, when there are so many intelligent and capable people in the world? | |||
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | ||||
