View Full Version : Bush & Blair: Impeach
Just read this article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-523-1592904-523,00.html) that came out MAY 1st, a week ago.
In essence, a document containing the minutes of a meeting Blair had with his inner circle describes how both nations already planned to use force on Iraq back in 2002, and that they would have serious difficulties providing legal evidence to do it.
It even suggests Washington fixed its intelligence to support their determination to go to war.
Impeach em all.
Sean of the Thread
05-09-2005, 01:15 PM
You are dumb.
[Edited on 5-9-2005 by Xyelin]
This reeks of Oliver Stone and Michael Moore.... be careful, if you get that smell on you it will take weeks of bathing in tomatoe juice to get it off.
I'm sure it [this new TOP SECRET, EYES ONLY DOCUMENT] has the same accuracy as the Bush military records that Dan Rather so staunchly supported until they were truthfully exposed as fabricated.
Lets hope they at least used paper that didnt have the Kinkos logo embossed on the back this time. :lol:
Latrinsorm
05-09-2005, 01:58 PM
If there's anything more reliable than second-hand hearsay, I don't know what it is.
I'd prefer to actually see the document in question.
Wezas
05-09-2005, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by Ganalon
has the same accuracy as the Bush military records that Dan Rather so staunchly supported until they were truthfully exposed as fabricated.
I guess fake military records wouldn't even be given a second glance if the originals hadn't been "accidentally destroyed".
I guess there's only the hearsay of his superiors and other military personel that have come forward and said they'd never seen him.
Hulkein
05-09-2005, 03:17 PM
:violin::violin::violin::violin::violin:
Originally posted by Wezas
Originally posted by Ganalon
has the same accuracy as the Bush military records that Dan Rather so staunchly supported until they were truthfully exposed as fabricated.
I guess fake military records wouldn't even be given a second glance if the originals hadn't been "accidentally destroyed".
I guess there's only the hearsay of his superiors and other military personel that have come forward and said they'd never seen him.
Same could be said of the swift boat veterans testimony. You can find examples of this on both sides of the fence...
Aye but what a noble deed it was to resort to fabrication and lies when the truth could not be discovered. I believe that's something that the Democrats fondly like to blame on the Republicans. I say both sides are guilty of it, it would just be nice if both sides will ADMIT it.
I wonder if Wezas's justification was the same as Michael Moore's when he made his 'documentaries' that were so worshiped on the left side of the political spectrum.
And lastly, play it loud Hulkein. Some will never tire of the song as long as there are those who continue to dance to it.
Suppa Hobbit Mage
05-09-2005, 04:16 PM
IT"S A CONSPIRACY!
Originally posted by Ganalon
I believe that's something that the Democrats fondly like to blame on the Republicans.
I say both sides are guilty of it, it would just be nice if both sides will ADMIT it.
I agree with the second quote.
Sean of the Thread
05-09-2005, 04:33 PM
Not to beat a dead horse..
You are dumb.
[Edited on 5-10-2005 by Xyelin]
What surprised me was the response from 10 Downing Street, which is the Prime Ministers office. "The document contains nothing new". That seems to be an admission of the document's authenticity.
The other I picked up from another article on the subject was this.
"A separate secret briefing for the meeting said Britain and America had to 'create' conditions to justify a war."
Article Here (http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1114956399301_5?hub=topstories)
From the very article mentioned above...
Blair told BBC television his government had discussed possible ways to topple Saddam Hussein in July 2002, but denied that such a discussion led to manufactured evidence or to the U.S. and British decision to attack.
"The idea we'd decided definitively for military action at that stage is wrong and disproved by the fact that several months later we went back to the United Nations to get a final resolution."
"If the UN resolution had been adhered to by Saddam then that would have been an end to it," he said... <end quote>
So I guess if the answer you get when you ask him doesnt fit your conspiracy then you should create phantom documentation.
I'm sure if the documents had any validity then they would have kept Blair from being re-elected as well as motivated charges of impeachment of Bush already.
Snipe hunting anyone?
Blah blah blah blah blah.:deadhorse:
Apotheosis
05-09-2005, 05:34 PM
http://www.gpariseau.com/humor/conspiracy.jpg
Jesus, Michael Moore is more and more disgusting each time I see him.
- Arkans
Showal
05-09-2005, 05:45 PM
I liked the SNL clip where they made fun of him and kept asking him when the last time he took a bath was. He finally answered and said he takes a "mexican shower" once a week where he only washes his face and his armpits.
You know... Ben Franklin only took airbaths where he sat in a chair naked in front of the window. Something about wet, cold, and catching pneumonia. Moore is in no way even close to being what Ben Franklin would be, even if he had a head injury...
Thats one way to keep pigeons off your window sill.
88 members of congress are taking this seriously. Two links on this page (http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/) are PDFs of a press release and the letter they sent to the White House.
Shouldn’t the so-called “liberal” media be having a feild day with this? Hmm.
[Edited on 5-9-2005 by Backlash]
Sean of the Thread
05-09-2005, 06:27 PM
88 out of 540.. sounds like congress is taking it REAL serious.
You are dumb.
[Edited on 5-9-2005 by Xyelin]
ElanthianSiren
05-09-2005, 06:44 PM
There's also a document from Blair's office, released by the guardian, (I know many of you detest the newspaper), that Britain had no legal, obvious case to go to War against Iraq. It's dated March 07 2003. It goes further to presume that the U.S. and Britain may be in violation of UN law themselves.
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2005/04/28/legal.pdf
I don't believe in Impeaching Bush or Blair. I used to think it was a good idea, especially given the bullshit Impeachment of Clinton over who he slept with. I remember being very angry that Clinton lied to America. If possible you'd have to magnify that fury by an infinite percent over a lie that led us into war.
That said, however, we really don't need MORE partisan politics in Washington from either side. I do, however, think that 1. the supposed exit strategy for Iraq that Bush claimed he had during the debates needs to be announced. 2. action needs to be taken such that this type of grievous error in judgement on the part of the commander in chief does not occur again; I will remind you that Congress only authorized Bush to use force if necessary. 3. An apology needs to be made ('sorry we killed all of your sons Mr. Hussein, but we really thought you were a world threat' would work for me -- call me old fashioned.) 4. An apology needs to be made publically to the American people.
If all of these things are done, I would be more than happy to accept Bush made a mistake. We all make mistakes. People with integrity apologize for them.
-Melissa
Warriorbird
05-09-2005, 06:44 PM
Y'know, as much as I enjoy an excuse to bash the President. Plans to attack Iraq have been in formulation by neocons since before Clinton's presidency. It's not like it's big news. They planned it for years. They just had to pitch it to the populace right.
Parker
05-09-2005, 06:48 PM
HN will love this thread, as it's apparently the 580,000,002nd version of the "I hate the war in Iraq!" thread.
Cheers!
longshot
05-09-2005, 06:57 PM
I'm not a huge fan of the president myself...
But I think anything short of burining all worldly possessions and moving into grass huts will be insufficient for Backlash.
Edited for grammar
[Edited on 5-9-2005 by longshot]
Artha
05-09-2005, 07:00 PM
In threads like this, I find it much easier to stfu and let the liberals have their circle jerk than to try and argue. I'd rather do something more productive, like bang my head against a wall.
HarmNone
05-09-2005, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by Parker
HN will love this thread, as it's apparently the 580,000,002nd version of the "I hate the war in Iraq!" thread.
Cheers!
Heh. I've already read it all 580,000,001 times. ;)
HarmNone, who rarely discusses politics
Suppa Hobbit Mage
05-09-2005, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by Parker
HN will love this thread, as it's apparently the 580,000,002nd version of the "I hate the war in Iraq!" thread.
Cheers!
No, it's only the 580,000,002nd version of Backlash bashing Bush. You need to learn to separate the two. Although it's usually him starting them both.
longshot
05-09-2005, 07:25 PM
Backlash has over 4,300 posts... and I think zero of them are funny or memorable in anyway.
That's tough to do.
And then, he complains when there's a members poll...
"Why wasn't I included??"
Go figure...
Originally posted by longshot
Backlash has over 4,300 posts... and I think zero of them are funny or memorable in anyway.
That's tough to do.
And then, he complains when there's a members poll...
"Why wasn't I included??"
Go figure...
Heh, I was wondering when you would train your searing commentary on me. Such a dubious privilege.
Take the story for what it is. Nothing will probably come of it, like nothing has come from all the other indicators that Iraq is not about the people.
longshot
05-09-2005, 08:28 PM
It's not searing commentary.
I think a few people here have reached critical mass on your social injustice threads...
You have every right to post how you want too...
But, I figured I'd turn on some flashing lights before you drive off that cliff and become the left-wing Edine.
That's all.
ElanthianSiren
05-09-2005, 08:44 PM
Originally posted by longshot
It's not searing commentary.
I think a few people here have reached critical mass on your social injustice threads...
You have every right to post how you want too...
But, I figured I'd turn on some flashing lights before you drive off that cliff and become the left-wing Edine.
That's all.
Grant it, I took a long vacation from the boards while I staffed the other MUD I worked on, so I might have missed some of the so-called threads. It's commonly thought, however, that our political system/social system and its decisions are open to review. I think it is exactly the ability to question and to investigate, the freedom of expression that we are afforded under our constitution, that makes the US one of the greatest countries in the world. IMO that either Edine or Backlash should cease to investigate their political opinions would be a tragedy. The opposite of love, isn't hate. It's indifference.
To me, it's refreshing to see so many on these boards who are VERY enthused, either way, about our political systems and current issues. If the boards, however and those opinionated individuals, have reached critical mass with Backlash's threads, I assume they will demonstrate that with a lack of response.
-Melissa
Latrinsorm
05-09-2005, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
I remember being very angry that Clinton lied to America. If possible you'd have to magnify that fury by an infinite percent over a lie that led us into war. There's a (tremendous) difference between knowing what you are saying is false and not. Most folks I know call the first a lie, and not the second.
Warriorbird
05-09-2005, 09:11 PM
And most folks aren't as simplistic as you... but we live and and we learn. There's a lot more involved than "false intelligence reports." I still don't think it is an impeachment issue, however.
Hulkein
05-09-2005, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
If the boards, however and those opinionated individuals, have reached critical mass with Backlash's threads, I assume they will demonstrate that with a lack of response.
-Melissa
I have, as many others have, for the most part.
Unfortunately I read a post from Backlash a few weeks ago that was hinting at the fact that the lack of arguing from conservatives equals people coming around and agreeing with his point of view.
It's necessary to point out we have, in fact, reached critical mass.
[Edited on 5-10-2005 by Hulkein]
Agreed. Silence doesnt work in cases such as this. Sometimes someone has to manup and say "You're full of shit" to threads such as this.
Some people will take their 15 minutes any way they can get it.
Sean of the Thread
05-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Originally posted by Backlash
Originally posted by longshot
Backlash has over 4,300 posts... and I think zero of them are funny or memorable in anyway.
That's tough to do.
And then, he complains when there's a members poll...
"Why wasn't I included??"
Go figure...
Heh, I was wondering when you would train your searing commentary on me. Such a dubious privilege.
Take the story for what it is. Nothing will probably come of it, like nothing has come from all the other indicators that Iraq is not about the people.
You are dumb.
Warriorbird
05-10-2005, 07:18 AM
I think Edine and Backlash both contribute to making things a little more vital, a little more personal. Isn't always a good or a bad thing... but it curiously might be better than random visceral insults forming the core of someone's posting habits.
Nakiro
05-10-2005, 08:49 AM
Just to quote Melissa and correct her.
"I used to think it was a good idea, especially given the bullshit Impeachment of Clinton over who he slept with."
He would've been impeached because he commited purgery, not because he had oral sex with an intern.
You’re all off-topic!
But, yeah, you think I’m bad now, should have been around leading up to the election. I think I’ve been pretty restrained this year, in comparison, which wouldn’t be to hard to do. Yes, I get belligerant, silly, stupid and outlandish. Thats what I love about PC, its a hard-core forum that I can get extreme in.
The two terms of this president have had a serious effect on my views regardling many things. Things that lay dormant during the booming Clinton years have returned twofold. That apathy has been lifted.
My opinons won’t change, I won’t stop calling things how I see them. I can adopt our president’s attitude of sticking to your guns, but for vastly different reasons. I can also do something our president can’t. Make a concession.
Parkbandit
05-10-2005, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by Backlash
Yes, I get belligerant, silly, stupid and outlandish.
You finally post something I can agree with.
:P
Wezas
05-10-2005, 10:12 AM
Except for the occasional Xyelin "You are dumb" post - I can almost stomach entire political threads now that Tamral is MIA.
I bet he was recruited by the CIA for his l33t haxor skilz.
Suppa Hobbit Mage
05-10-2005, 10:16 AM
If we could keep Dave and Backlash from posting, I'd participate in them as well. (in addition to Tamral)
Wezas
05-10-2005, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
If we could keep Dave and Backlash from posting, I'd participate in them as well. (in addition to Tamral)
In any discussion/debate you need the voice of the extreme left/extreme right heard. That way you can see how rediculous they sound and people like PB & Tsa'ah seem more moderate.
Atlanteax
05-10-2005, 10:31 AM
It'll be interesting when the day come that the UK backs out of the EU...
... and the US, UK, Canada, and Australia becomes "integrated" on paper, as the EU is in the process of.
It is obvious to see with US & UK, and US & Australia (UK & Australia is less obvious), and if those three are finalizing plans, that would be when Canada decides to join in (hedging till then) as it would be an rather practical move.
Sean of the Thread
05-10-2005, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by Wezas
Except for the occasional Xyelin "You are dumb" post - I can almost stomach entire political threads now that Tamral is MIA.
I bet he was recruited by the CIA for his l33t haxor skilz.
Hahahahah at the Tamral part. As for the political threads I don't mind at all. Everytime I wanted to contribute to this thread it all boiled down to "You are dumb". I can't stand the michael moore conspiracy bullshit that some people like backlash constantly spin.
Again I want to contribute something to this thread but just now I had the same feeling. The feeling that it is Backlash and anything I say other than "you are dumb" won't matter.
So with out further ado....
He is dumb.
[Edited on 5-10-2005 by Xyelin]
ElanthianSiren
05-10-2005, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by Nakiro
Just to quote Melissa and correct her.
"I used to think it was a good idea, especially given the bullshit Impeachment of Clinton over who he slept with."
He would've been impeached because he commited purgery, not because he had oral sex with an intern.
Basically, becasue he lied about who he slept with. If I read the article that Backlash is citing, it states that Bush, and members of the Bush administration, deliberately lied about/fabricated evidence to go to war with Iraq.
So you are saying that the political ramifications, in your mind, about lying to justify a war where thousands of peope died, shouldn't principally be as bad as if you lied and said you slept with/didn't sleep with someone when you did/didn't?
-Melissa
Wezas
05-10-2005, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
So you are saying that the political ramifications, in your mind, about lying to justify a war where thousands of peope died, shouldn't principally be as bad as if you lied and said you slept with/didn't sleep with someone when you did/didn't?
-Melissa
Jesus, I hope not. I don't need that kind of guilt for lying about blowjob I've gotten.
Originally posted by Backlash
My opinons won’t change, I won’t stop calling things how I see them. I can adopt our president’s attitude of sticking to your guns, but for vastly different reasons. I can also do something our president can’t. Make a concession. We reached critical mass this past election and the political topics seemed to have died down a bit until recent. We all have an opinion and we're all entitled to it regardless of how sick and tired any one of us is of hearing the same old same old. It comes from both sides with equal intensity.
I appreciate the discussions Backlash brings to political debates as much as I appreciate hearing opinions that are different than mine, regardless of my agreement or disagreement.
I might not agree with everything Backlash says but shit... keep doing your thing, man.
Parkbandit
05-10-2005, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by Wezas
Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
So you are saying that the political ramifications, in your mind, about lying to justify a war where thousands of peope died, shouldn't principally be as bad as if you lied and said you slept with/didn't sleep with someone when you did/didn't?
-Melissa
Jesus, I hope not. I don't need that kind of guilt for lying about blowjob I've gotten.
LOL.
There is a big difference you are conveniently leaving out in your comparison. Bush was not under any kind of court oath. Clinton was.
Clinton didn't get impeached because he lied to his friends who he got his nob shined by.. he was impeached because he lied while under oath.
Wezas
05-10-2005, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by Parkbandit
There is a big difference you are conveniently leaving out in your comparison. Bush was not under any kind of court oath. Clinton was.
...because Bush refuses to be quoted under oath. What's he got to hide?
Parkbandit
05-10-2005, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by DeV
It comes from both sides with equal intensity.
If we are talking about the past 13 years, I would agree. Since Clinton has been out of office and the Bush administration has been voted in, the overwhelming intensity has come from your side of the line though.
I wasn't part of these boards 6 years ago.. so I can't tell you if it was just as bad then in an opposite fashion. Perhaps it was and the pendulum is just swinging the other way now.
Parkbandit
05-10-2005, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by Wezas
Originally posted by Parkbandit
There is a big difference you are conveniently leaving out in your comparison. Bush was not under any kind of court oath. Clinton was.
...because Bush refuses to be quoted under oath. What's he got to hide?
Heh. Probably not a blowjob from an intern.
Warriorbird
05-10-2005, 11:48 AM
Nonsense. More conservative attempts to reframe things.
The Republican Party was out to get Clinton (much like the Democrats are out to get Dubya.)
They ostensibly favor family values, despite this being hypocritical nonsense... thusly, attacking him over his mistress was perfect.
The investigation into his affair existed long before the lying did.
Warriorbird
05-10-2005, 11:49 AM
This is just Democrats doing similar. In both instances, I find it pretty foolish.
Wezas
05-10-2005, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by Parkbandit
Originally posted by Wezas
...because Bush refuses to be quoted under oath. What's he got to hide?
Heh. Probably not a blowjob from an intern.
Exactly.
Originally posted by Parkbandit
Originally posted by DeV
It comes from both sides with equal intensity.
If we are talking about the past 13 years, I would agree. Since Clinton has been out of office and the Bush administration has been voted in, the overwhelming intensity has come from your side of the line though.
I wasn't part of these boards 6 years ago.. so I can't tell you if it was just as bad then in an opposite fashion. Perhaps it was and the pendulum is just swinging the other way.Wow. must you ALWAYS point a finger. I mean... seriously, wtf. I wasn't apart of these boards 6 years ago either and I am only referring to the last year plus that I've been a member.
No one has ever stopped you from making a thread showing the administration in a positive light and the last person I recall doing so was Ganalon, and that was very recent. Perhaps it is that those who choose to be more vocal about their opinions, just are.
Wezas
05-10-2005, 11:57 AM
Democrats are in the spotlight now because there is a republican president. Republicans were in the spotlight 6+ years ago because there was a democrat president.
In 3 years (if there's a democratic president) and the republicans are ranting we'll look back and say, "Damn, PB had a minivan even back then?" :D
Parkbandit
05-10-2005, 12:08 PM
My point was.. you believe it to be in equal intensity on this message board where I see it coming from the liberal side more than the conservative line. My theory on this was because a Republican was in office and that it was probably the opposite when Clinton was in office.
If that's pointing a finger.. then so be it.
:shrug:
Parkbandit
05-10-2005, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by Wezas
Democrats are in the spotlight now because there is a republican president. Republicans were in the spotlight 6+ years ago because there was a democrat president.
In 3 years (if there's a democratic president) and the republicans are ranting we'll look back and say, "Damn, PB had a minivan even back then?" :D
Exactly.. well, except the mini-van thing. If you want to be correct, you would say that PB's wife drives a mini-van.
In conclusion.. fuck off.
So is it safe to say everyone here feels comfortable with the idea that our leaders decided they had to “sell” this war to us to get our support for it?
Originally posted by Ganalon
From the very article mentioned above...
Blair told BBC television his government had discussed possible ways to topple Saddam Hussein in July 2002, but denied that such a discussion led to manufactured evidence or to the U.S. and British decision to attack.
"The idea we'd decided definitively for military action at that stage is wrong and disproved by the fact that several months later we went back to the United Nations to get a final resolution."
"If the UN resolution had been adhered to by Saddam then that would have been an end to it," he said... <end quote>
So I guess if the answer you get when you ask him doesnt fit your conspiracy then you should create phantom documentation.
I'm sure if the documents had any validity then they would have kept Blair from being re-elected as well as motivated charges of impeachment of Bush already.
Snipe hunting anyone?
Blah blah blah blah blah.:deadhorse:
The Times is a respected news source in England. There are many Fleet street rags but the Times isn't one of them.
Blair never denied that the document wasn't valid, he just said that the discussion never included the manufacturing of evidence. What did you expect him to say on the eve of an election? "Hell yeah I am a lying scum bucket like my pal George, we have been trying to invent a reason to invade Iraq for years.
Blair took that manufactured evidence to the UN, the fact he took it there isn't proof he didn't manufacture it.
Regarding Blair being relected by a narrow margin. The election system in England is different from America. You get one vote only. That vote is a vote for a party. You don't get a separate vote for Prime Minister and then another vote for your Member of Parliament. Blair got in because people didn't like the Conservative's platform. Many who voted for Blair's party think Blair is scum
Originally posted by Parkbandit
My point was.. you believe it to be in equal intensity on this message board where I see it coming from the liberal side more than the conservative line.I guess that's the difference between you and I. I believe it to be equal intensity as far as the liberals and conservatives on the board, period. I think regardless of who is in office it will always be that way. Perhaps more threads are started by those who are dissatisfied with the way things are going, but that would not be an excuse to say, (in general) the intensity comes more from your side than ours or however it's been stated. As I see it, the intensity is within the framework and subject matter of the thread itself, and not just within one side of the political see-saw, that being primarily the liberal side.
And yeah, this is a dumb argument. :saint:
My initial post was in reference to the backlash at Backlash's political posting style.
Parkbandit
05-10-2005, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by Backlash
So is it safe to say everyone here feels comfortable with the idea that our leaders decided they had to “sell” this war to us to get our support for it?
Name one war that the leaders didn't have to sell to us.
Mind you though, I am still not convinced that we went to war with Iraq because we needed oil.. or Bush wanted to get back at Saddam.. or Bush wanted to help his Haliburton friends... or Bush knew there were not WMD but made them up anyway.
Parkbandit
05-10-2005, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by DeV
Originally posted by Parkbandit
My point was.. you believe it to be in equal intensity on this message board where I see it coming from the liberal side more than the conservative line.I guess that's the difference between you and I. I believe it to be equal intensity as far as the liberals and conservatives on the board, period. I think regardless of who is in office it will always be that way. Perhaps more threads are started by those who are dissatisfied with the way things are going, but that would not be an excuse to say, (in general) the intensity comes more from your side than ours or however it's been stated. As I see it, the intensity is within the framework and subject matter of the thread itself, and not just within one side of the political see-saw, that being primarily the liberal side.
And yeah, this is a dumb argument. :saint:
My initial post was in reference to the backlash at Backlash's political posting style.
I suppose I could go through the Off Topic threads and count those that were initiated Pro-Bush and those that were Con-Bush and give you the totals. I'm pretty sure Con-Bush would win 2 to 1.
I suppose I could go through the Off Topic threads and count those that were initiated Pro-Bush and those that were Con-Bush and give you the totals. I'm pretty sure Con-Bush would win 2 to 1. Or you could take my post for what it was worth and run with that. I thought I made it pretty clear that I was referring to the intensity of the debates themselves and not the intensity with which political threads are started...
p.s. No one is stopping you from making a pro-Bush thread, still.
Wezas
05-10-2005, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by Parkbandit
I suppose I could go through the Off Topic threads and count those that were initiated Pro-Bush and those that were Con-Bush and give you the totals. I'm pretty sure Con-Bush would win 2 to 1.
Dick.
So how long have you been holding in that theory waiting for the moment when Tamral would be MIA to disprove your theory?
CrystalTears
05-10-2005, 12:44 PM
What exactly is a pro-Bush thread? Because there are things that I believe that Bush is doing which is a positive issue and others that think that it's actually negative. His efforts to help social security is one. I think it's heading in a good direction and others will disagree. For those that are opposed to Bush, there will never be a "pro-Bush" thread.
Originally posted by CrystalTears
What exactly is a pro-Bush thread? Ask PB.
His efforts to help social security is one. I think it's heading in a good direction and others will disagree. And that's the beauty of it all. So what if others disagree. For one, when Ganalon made his Bush thread I agreed, it was good news. But, there are those who won't agree and for that matter, who cares. Debate it with them if it's that serious to you and if it isn't, we know what to do.
For those that are opposed to Bush, there will never be a "pro-Bush" thread. A little optimism wouldn't hurt.
Warriorbird
05-10-2005, 02:04 PM
"Mind you though, I am still not convinced that we went to war with Iraq because we needed oil.. or Bush wanted to get back at Saddam.. or Bush wanted to help his Haliburton friends... or Bush knew there were not WMD but made them up anyway. "
Curiously enough, there're other reasons!
You gripe about Democrats being simplistic about it...yet you ignore the various statements and evidence from conservatives that it is/was multifaceted and that it has been planned for a while.
Originally posted by Warriorbird
"Mind you though, I am still not convinced that we went to war with Iraq because we needed oil.. or Bush wanted to get back at Saddam.. or Bush wanted to help his Haliburton friends... or Bush knew there were not WMD but made them up anyway. "
Curiously enough, there're other reasons!
You gripe about Democrats being simplistic about it...yet you ignore the various statements and evidence from conservatives that it is/was multifaceted and that it has been planned for a while.
Multifaceted only came up once it became evident no weapons of mass destruction were going to be found.
Before I become labelled as a rapid liberal. I support an up and down vote on Judge Owen and I find the Democrat filibuster nothing more than a childish temper tantrum. Furthermore it is undemocratic.
I go issue by issue.
[Edited on 5-10-2005 by xtc]
Warriorbird
05-10-2005, 02:24 PM
While I disagree with you (a lot, and in this case...it was stupid when the Democrats did it, and now stupid once again) I think that is refreshingly logical.
Wezas
05-10-2005, 02:26 PM
I read Warriorbird's political, serious, and well written posts and then I look at his avatar.
And for some reason I bust out laughing every time.
No offense intended.
Warriorbird
05-10-2005, 03:50 PM
That's me.
:)
I do tend to be relentlessly upbeat, despite lots of things that should make me not be. I don't think that always comes across online.
Originally posted by CrystalTears
What exactly is a pro-Bush thread?
A thread praising women in porn.
The brits are eerily absent from this topic.
CrystalTears
05-10-2005, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by xtc
Originally posted by CrystalTears
What exactly is a pro-Bush thread?
A thread praising women in porn.
:lol2: Thanks, xtc. I needed a good laugh today.
Sean of the Thread
05-10-2005, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by Backlash
So is it safe to say everyone here feels comfortable with the idea that our leaders decided they had to “sell” this war to us to get our support for it?
They don't have to sell you anything for your support. You/We as a nation elected them to do what they are doing. Like it or not. If not you have an option that I'm sure I don't have to tell your liberal ass. Canada is not far north.
Warriorbird
05-10-2005, 04:43 PM
Except they did anyways and anyone with even a modicum of intelligence can see that. That sort've renders your entire statement moot.
Sean of the Thread
05-10-2005, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by Warriorbird
Except they did anyways and anyone with even a modicum of intelligence can see that. That sort've renders your entire statement moot.
You're now dumb too.
Originally posted by Backlash
The brits are eerily absent from this topic.
It's YOU guys who seem to give a shit. Once you get going, I, personally don't want to become involved.
The posters on this board can talk for my country much more , much better than I can.
Besides , I'm not a manic socialist OR a devout patriot.
When there's people from Brit-land who post here and fit the above categories. . I'd rather THEY post instead.
Originally posted by Backlash
So is it safe to say everyone here feels comfortable with the idea that our leaders decided they had to “sell” this war to us to get our support for it?
Overall, I'd say that says more about us as people than the president as a leader.
Warriorbird
05-10-2005, 06:35 PM
I'm not sure it is necessarily bad.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.