Spike Lee...John Kerry Supporter

[JakeAisA]

Here's a recent quote from Spike Lee about Nascar Fans. Nascar fans are represent the enemy to Liberals: we're mostly conservative, definatley not the environmental types and we embrace our manly side unlike most liberals who want to kill everything manly in themselves.
From Article:
Lowdown
Spike Lee steers clear of NASCAR events.
Don't go looking for Spike Lee at any NASCAR events this summer.
The ornery movie director and Knicks fanatic nurses a paranoid fantasy about the National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing circuit.
"I just imagine hearing some country-and-Western song over a loudspeaker at NASCAR: 'Hang them n-- up high! Hang them n-- up high!' I'm not going to no NASCAR," Lee vows in the August issue of Playboy.
Gotta love liberals...the world would be perfect without them and that could get boring.

[Lake Pirate]

yeah... I'm a huge fan of Spike Lee. :rolleyes:
Nuthin' like some antiquated civil war rhetoric based in unrealistic prejudice to define the liberals.
John Wayne Gacy was a Republican. Is he your martyr?
Most liberals are defined by their individual politics. Trying to lump us all into one mass ideology is like saying all basketball players have big dicks. You apparently aren't qualified to presume. We're going to have to restrict you to wild guesses and extreme bias based on lack of knowledge style threads. Oh wait...this is one. My bad. Carry on.

[JakeAisA]

Originally posted by Lake Pirate
yeah... I'm a huge fan of Spike Lee. :rolleyes:
Nuthin' like some antiquated civil war rhetoric based in unrealistic prejudice to define the liberals.
John Wayne Gacy was a Republican. Is he your martyr?
Most liberals are defined by their individual politics. Trying to lump us all into one mass ideology is like saying all basketball players have big dicks. You apparently aren't qualified to presume. We're going to have to restrict you to wild guesses and extreme bias based on lack of knowledge style threads. Oh wait...this is one. My bad. Carry on.
Hahahahaha....rhetoric. You're funny.
I do define Liberals by thier individual politics--and my conclusion is the same.

[JakeAisA]

Originally posted by JakeAisA
Hahahahaha....rhetoric. You're funny.
I do define Liberals by thier individual politics--and my conclusion is the same.
I have to back up. I was wrong because I assumed you were right. After reading your post again, I realized you were wrong and I was right. I CAN generalize what Liberal is just as I can generalize what a conservative is, a classic liberal, a socialist, a marxist, a lenninist or a fascist. You see, concepts are concrete. Meaning, words mean something--concrete ideas or concrete things.
I can definitively say a Liberal is anyone who's economic beleifs are that of someone who beleives in the "mixed economy" as the ideal (part socialist, part fascist, part capitalist). I can say definitively that Liberals generaly distrust the individual with thier property and personal decisions, preferring to defer these choices to the state and the "educated elite" instead.
I can say this about all Liberals you see becuase that is what the definition of "Liberal" is. You cannot be a liberal and at the same time be a conservative. The two are contradictions. It's like saying I'm a both fat and skinny at the same time--both terms mean something concrete.
I apoligize for being wrong in my previous response...it happens.

[Coach]

This should sum it up
http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/products/a301/a301.gif

[Coach]

Or how about this
http://prodtn.cafepress.com/1/7700151_F_tn.jpg

[JakeAisA]

Originally posted by Coach
Or how about this
http://prodtn.cafepress.com/1/7700151_F_tn.jpg
Hey Coach, you a Trojan?

[Coach]

Just a huge fan.

[JakeAisA]

Originally posted by Coach
Just a huge fan.
I love your avatar. It's over for the PacTen this year, specially if Williams gets back. I can't wait for the season to start.

[Coach]

Originally posted by JakeAisA
I love your avatar. It's over for the PacTen this year, specially if Williams gets back. I can't wait for the season to start.
You and me both, this is the worst time of the year for sports. I am just itchn to see some hitting again. I love football season. The trojans will be tested on the O-line, esp without winston justice, but I think the recrutes they have had the last two years will be able to step in and make an impact.

[JakeAisA]

Originally posted by Coach
You and me both, this is the worst time of the year for sports. I am just itchn to see some hitting again. I love football season. The trojans will be tested on the O-line, esp without winston justice, but I think the recrutes they have had the last two years will be able to step in and make an impact.
I agree.
But how stupid is Winston Justice? Can you beleive that? I'm glad he's gone becuase he would have wound up being another embarrasment. Last year he gets caught soliciting a hooker. Now he's caught trying to "kill" someone with a pellet gun!
It doesn't matter though. We're stacked everywhere. I am not all that worried about the O-Line though. Matt Leinhart didn't run a whole lot of 5 step drop, sit in the pocket for 4 seconds typ e of pass plays last year because the coaches were worried about his knee. They ran mostly quick drop plays last year and it worked out perfect. They can do that again.
I've already started in on my UCLA buddies though. Last year I told them they wouldn't beat us for 10 years and they laughed. It's funny because they're starting to beleive it now...you can see it in thier eyes.

[vodkarocks]

"I just imagine hearing some country-and-Western song over a loudspeaker at NASCAR: 'Hang them n-- up high! Hang them n-- up high!' I'm not going to no NASCAR," Lee vows in the August issue of Playboy
The crazy thing is if a famous white guy said something this racist he'd lose his job and never be able to get another one, and it would be the lead story on every news station for a week, and the naacp would demand an apology

[rrrr]

Originally posted by vodkarocks
"I just imagine hearing some country-and-Western song over a loudspeaker at NASCAR: 'Hang them n-- up high! Hang them n-- up high!' I'm not going to no NASCAR," Lee vows in the August issue of Playboy
The crazy thing is if a famous white guy said something this racist he'd lose his job and never be able to get another one, and it would be the lead story on every news station for a week, and the naacp would demand an apology
You forgot the part where Jesse Jackson and Rainbow/PUSH would jump in, demand donations for "reeducation training", and make the guy hire some of Jesse's relatives.
:rolleyes: :mad:

[Lake Pirate]

Spike lee's life work is nothing but being a conduit to purpetuate racism. He is a racist and he teaches children to be racist. He is not on my "pals" list. I am immediately reporting him to the "union of liberal alchemists" and having them pull his benefits card. I am also taking strides to keep him from hugging a tree within fifty yards of mine. Michael Moore too. I know nothing about MM but since y'all say he's evil incarnate it must be true. You all have honest faces.

[JakeAisA]

Originally posted by rrrr
You forgot the part where Jesse Jackson and Rainbow/PUSH would jump in, demand donations for "reeducation training", and make the guy hire some of Jesse's relatives.
:rolleyes: :mad:
Hey rrrr, you fogot that Jesse Jackson already did that two years ago to Nascar. But not because of anything they said, rather, it was because they didn't say anything. I was happy to see Nascar tell Jesse to get phuct about 6 months ago when they pulled "forced donations" to Rainbow Push.

[mirvin]

Lake Pirate is my hero!!!:D
mirvin

[JakeAisA]

Originally posted by Lake Pirate
Spike lee's life work is nothing but being a conduit to purpetuate racism. He is a racist and he teaches children to be racist. He is not on my "pals" list. I am immediately reporting him to the "union of liberal alchemists" and having them pull his benefits card. I am also taking strides to keep him from hugging a tree within fifty yards of mine. Michael Moore too. I know nothing about MM but since y'all say he's evil incarnate it must be true. You all have honest faces.
You don't know anything about Michael Moore? Do you read? Do you watch cable news? Do you listen to the radio? Don't b.s. us.
I hope you're not saying this just because you're an honest Liberal who doesn't want to be associated with the dishonest Liberals on his side.
Like it or not, Michael Moore speaks for many Democrats.

[mirvin]

Originally posted by JakeAisA
You don't know anything about Michael Moore? Do you read? Do you watch cable news? Do you listen to the radio? Don't b.s. us.
I hope you're not saying this just because you're an honest Liberal who doesn't want to be associated with the dishonest Liberals on his side.
Like it or not, Michael Moore speaks for many Democrats.
I don't know Jake, I think there are plenty of Dems who have been watching what they're party, or at least the elitist portion of their party is doing and are ashamed and embarrased and don't want to be associated with that portion of the party.
mirvin

[JakeAisA]

Originally posted by mirvin
I don't know Jake, I think there are plenty of Dems who have been watching what they're party, or at least the elitist portion of their party is doing and are ashamed and embarrased and don't want to be associated with that portion of the party.
mirvin
Of course, but to claim you don't know who Michael Moore is?

[mirvin]

Originally posted by JakeAisA
Of course, but to claim you don't know who Michael Moore is?
Lots of people don't know much about him. They think he's a filmaker. If you're not wacky enough to subscribe to all the conspiracy theories then maybe you never look into his world.
I don't know much about Michael Moore because I chose not to hear him. I have never seen any of his movies and anytime I see or hear something I turn the channel because I chose to.
I don't think that's strictly a conservative viewpoint.
mirvin

[Lake Pirate]

Don't get me wrong. I won't let a little thing like integrity stop me from voting a partisan ticket. However... I no more think Rummy and Asscroft's autocratic world vision represents every Rep than you should think MM represents mine. I have yet to read anything about Moore. I guess I should? He seems to be a hot topic.

[mirvin]

Originally posted by Lake Pirate
Don't get me wrong. I won't let a little thing like integrity stop me from voting a partisan ticket. However... I no more think Rummy and Asscroft's autocratic world vision represents every Rep than you should think MM represents mine. I have yet to read anything about Moore. I guess I should? He seems to be a hot topic.
I don't think you NEED to.... Or if you did, he might be you're hero.
What's wrong with Rummy and Asscroft anyway?;) Seems like they're doing a fine job......
mirvin;)

[JakeAisA]

Originally posted by Lake Pirate
Don't get me wrong. I won't let a little thing like integrity stop me from voting a partisan ticket. However... I no more think Rummy and Asscroft's autocratic world vision represents every Rep than you should think MM represents mine. I have yet to read anything about Moore. I guess I should? He seems to be a hot topic.
I suggest relacing your use of "autocratic world vision" with "no terrorist left alive world vision". You're smoke screening it.

[Lake Pirate]

I guess you didn't read the Cheney/Rumsfeld treatise on world domination? Kinda turned me off. These guys aren't about fighting terror...thay are about usurping all governments. The thing reads like Mein Kampf. Asscroft is their Himmler. Very dangerous guys unless you wear tight young republicans outfit and march like a stick man.

[Havasu_Dreamin]

Originally posted by mirvin
I don't know Jake, I think there are plenty of Dems who have been watching what they're party, or at least the elitist portion of their party is doing and are ashamed and embarrased and don't want to be associated with that portion of the party.
mirvin
The same can be said for the republicans as well. And I'm a republican.

[mirvin]

Originally posted by Lake Pirate
I guess you didn't read the Cheney/Rumsfeld treatise on world domination? Kinda turned me off. These guys aren't about fighting terror...thay are about usurping all governments. The thing reads like Mein Kampf. Asscroft is their Himmler. Very dangerous guys unless you wear tight young republicans outfit and march like a stick man.
Now that just sounds like crazy talk LP!! Why would you think that? Or is that what you think of anyone who is forced to get tough?
mirvin

[JakeAisA]

Originally posted by Lake Pirate
I guess you didn't read the Cheney/Rumsfeld treatise on world domination? Kinda turned me off. These guys aren't about fighting terror...thay are about usurping all governments. The thing reads like Mein Kampf. Asscroft is their Himmler. Very dangerous guys unless you wear tight young republicans outfit and march like a stick man.
This whole statement above has absolutely no intellectual value whatsoever. You say nothing whatsover that should be listened to. The only thing you can do is liken people to Nazis.
Let me ask you a question funny guy. Have you seen the Nick Berg video? If you haven't, here's a link below at the end.
Go call America's leaders Nazi's after seeing that. You sound like the typcical college graduate of the last 20 years. Only somebody educated by todays American Universities can beleive or say such stupid, insane and childish things and take themselves seriously.
Watch this video and then try saying the things you've said above with a straight face.
link: http://www.thoughtson.org/

[JakeAisA]

I forgot to warn everybody above. The link I posted is to the beheading of Nick Berg.
It's graphic, but it's my opinion you don't have a right to discuss Iraq or Terrorism if you haven't viewed this video or at least listened to the audio.
This video puts Iraq and Terrorism in perspectivie--it makes it real. This video takes Iraq and Terrorism out of the tea party talk realm and throws it into the serious realm it belongs.
Your opinion is meaningless if you haven't seen this video. Just beware that it is graphic.

[Blown 472]

Hey Jake, hows come we are not bombing the **** outa saudi arabia??

[Lake Pirate]

I guess I can take it that you didn't read it? I'm in no mood to google it for you right now but years and years ago Cheney and Rumsfeld wrote a piece on their views of how to control world derision and combat anti american sentiment. Their solution is essentially the dismantling of governments they think disagree with their policies. As luck would have it...this whole 9/11 thing has actually given them the chance to put their dictatorial and expansionistic ideas into motion. They've been a little busy to do a lot with it but given another four years....yikes.
The beheading is a tragedy. Don't belittle it by using it to win an argument over the internet.

[mirvin]

Originally posted by Blown 472
Hey Jake, hows come we are not bombing the **** outa saudi arabia??
It's politics Blown, you wouldn't understand...err, uh, you don't need to know.....errrrrr.. How dare you??!!!
mirvin;)

[Blown 472]

Originally posted by Lake Pirate
I guess I can take it that you didn't read it? I'm in no mood to google it for you right now but years and years ago Cheney and Rumsfeld wrote a piece on their views of how to control world derision and combat anti american sentiment. Their solution is essentially the dismantling of governments they think disagree with their policies. As luck would have it...this whole 9/11 thing has actually given them the chance to put their dictatorial and expansionistic ideas into motion. They've been a little busy to do a lot with it but given another four years....yikes.
The beheading is a tragedy. Don't belittle it by using it to win an argument over the internet.
You mean like when the neo cons, think of 9/11 as their pearl harbor?

[JakeAisA]

Originally posted by Blown 472
Hey Jake, hows come we are not bombing the **** outa saudi arabia??
One at a time. Besides, Saudi Arabia is different. In Iraq, the psychos were in power. The people feared those in power in Iraq. In Saudi Arabia, the population is more dangerous then the royal family is. The royal family fears the population.
Other tactics must used in Saudi Arabia.

[Lake Pirate]

What the heck is a neocon? 'Scuse my ignorance.
I thought I was on your ignore list?

[Blown 472]

Originally posted by JakeAisA
One at a time. Besides, Saudi Arabia is different. In Iraq, the psychos were in power. The people feared those in power in Iraq. In Saudi Arabia, the population is more dangerous then the royal family is. The royal family fears the population.
Other tactics must used in Saudi Arabia.
Different how?? 15 of the 19 shitbags that killed americans are from there.
What about the american contractor that lost his head there, is his life less important cuz he didn't get killed in iraq??
With a direct link to terroism please define "different"

[Blown 472]

Originally posted by Lake Pirate
What the heck is a neocon? 'Scuse my ignorance.
I thought I was on your ignore list?
If you get bored google neo con.
Why would I put you on there? I dont have anyone on there.

[mirvin]

"Neo Con":D :D Holy sh it what a bunch of hoooey!! I've read some funny stuff befo but dis takes the cake.
Blame it on the neo cons!!:D :D :D Hee hee.
mirvin

[Schiada76]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lake Pirate
[B]I guess I can take it that you didn't read it? I'm in no mood to google it for you right now but years and years ago Cheney and Rumsfeld wrote a piece on their views of how to control world derision and combat anti american sentiment. Their solution is essentially the dismantling of governments they think disagree with their policies.
Well Butt Pirate from Texhomo you need to just get on off your boyfriends lap and google that up for us!
If it's true I'm a liberal for life! :D :D
Sieg heil!

[JakeAisA]

Originally posted by Lake Pirate
I guess I can take it that you didn't read it? I'm in no mood to google it for you right now but years and years ago Cheney and Rumsfeld wrote a piece on their views of how to control world derision and combat anti american sentiment. Their solution is essentially the dismantling of governments they think disagree with their policies. As luck would have it...this whole 9/11 thing has actually given them the chance to put their dictatorial and expansionistic ideas into motion. They've been a little busy to do a lot with it but given another four years....yikes.
The beheading is a tragedy. Don't belittle it by using it to win an argument over the internet.
There you go again. You think we're in Iraq because of Bush's, Cheney's or Rumsfeild's desire to fulfill thier power ambitions? Do you really beleive this?
Your in serious error too when you call what we're doing in Iraq "dictatorial and expansionist". You see, bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East is a negative action. Freedom cannot be "forced" on anyone. Freedom is merely the lack of force or the threat of it. By definition, it is metaphysically impossible to call an new republic "dictatorial". You sound foolish by describing it as such.
Get it?
But answer the question I posed earlier, jokester, have you watched the Nick Berg video?
It's hard for me to beleive you can say such things after seeing the video.

[JakeAisA]

Originally posted by Blown 472
Different how?? 15 of the 19 shitbags that killed americans are from there.
What about the american contractor that lost his head there, is his life less important cuz he didn't get killed in iraq??
With a direct link to terroism please define "different"
You think 800 Marines dead are bad? Just wait until Marines are in Mecca dude. I don't necessarily disagree with what your saying, but for some reason I don't think you support invading Saudi Arabia.
Do you think we should invade Saudi Arabia?

[Blown 472]

Originally posted by JakeAisA
You think 800 Marines dead are bad? Just wait until Marines are in Mecca dude. I don't necessarily disagree with what your saying, but for some reason I don't think you support invading Saudi Arabia.
Do you think we should invade Saudi Arabia?
I think 800 marines dead is very bad, they all had family.
I think our gubment should stop talking out both sides of their mouths, if they are going to say we are fighting a war on terrorism then why are they turning a blind eye to where a lot of it is coming from?

[JakeAisA]

Originally posted by Blown 472
I think 800 marines dead is very bad, they all had family.
I think our gubment should stop talking out both sides of their mouths, if they are going to say we are fighting a war on terrorism then why are they turning a blind eye to where a lot of it is coming from?
The answer to your question is easily answered: what are the options?
a. Invade Saudi Arabia.
b. Convince the Saudi Royals that they need to help us.
c. Abandon the Saudis and the entire Middle East entirely.
Answer "a" is all out War in the Middle East. You want to see another "Vietnam"? That's the best way to bring Vietnam back.
Answer "c" is just as bad. We left the Taliban alone and observe what happened. We've left Africa alone, observe what's happened. This is the "reverse psychology" argument. It won't work. Bad people won't turn good or leave us alone if we act like we don't see them.
Answer "b" is the only viable option. The only way to crack down on the most potentially volotile society in the Middle East is to convince and pressure the Saudis to do it themselves.

[Lake Pirate]

Ummm...asianjack ~ When did I say we were in Iraq for expansionistic reasons? I said Chenety/Rummy were expansionists. And don't assume because you want to, that we are in Iraq for terror. The flavor of the day on that one is WMD. It changes from time to time so tomorrow might be different.
Here's a story on it. I'm sure there's a link handy from there that will steer you to the actual document.
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0309&article=030911

[mirvin]

What about Spike??!! I thought we were talking about Spike Lee, dammit!
That no good....
mirvin;)

[JakeAisA]

Originally posted by Lake Pirate
Ummm...asianjack ~ When did I say we were in Iraq for expansionistic reasons? I said Chenety/Rummy were expansionists. And don't assume because you want to, that we are in Iraq for terror. The flavor of the day on that one is WMD. It changes from time to time so tomorrow might be different.
Here's a story on it. I'm sure there's a link handy from there that will steer you to the actual document.
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0309&article=030911
You still haven't answered my question.

[mirvin]

The problem with the lefty loosies is that they have no vision.
Stay with me here: We got Afganistan, Iraq is just a matter of time. From there, naturally, we'll just squeeze out Iran. Then it;s on. At that point we can start making demands on the Saudis'. Oh yeah, don't forget we already got Isreal to the west so, in time gentlemen.
mirvin;)

[Schiada76]

"The strategy makes pre-emptive war official policy against "rogue states" with the alleged potential to develop weapons of mass destruction. "To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries," the White House documents say, "the United States will, if necessary, act pre-emptively." To fight those countries the administration accuses of attaining (or even seeking) weapons of mass destruction, the planning documents threaten its own mass destruction: the possible first use of U.S. nuclear weapons. Admitting that this is a "fundamental change from the past," the White House documents state that U.S. military forces will use "pre-emptive measures" against such states, including "the full range of operational capabilities"—which many read as code for nuclear strikes. Indeed, this year's defense authorization bill includes new, low-yield nuclear weapons, including the "bunker buster."
Just a quick paragraph from the ass bandits pundit.
Just exactly what's wrong with this "new" policy?
Oh wait I know, we need to let them attack us first eerrrrr first again and again again. THEN we can respond, but not in a way that will upset the leftists lunatics.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Sieg Heil ass pirate.
Oh btw the "bunker buster" is not nuclear but don't let the facts get in your way.

[JakeAisA]

Originally posted by Lake Pirate
Ummm...asianjack ~ When did I say we were in Iraq for expansionistic reasons? I said Chenety/Rummy were expansionists. And don't assume because you want to, that we are in Iraq for terror. The flavor of the day on that one is WMD. It changes from time to time so tomorrow might be different.
Here's a story on it. I'm sure there's a link handy from there that will steer you to the actual document.
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0309&article=030911
You still haven't answered my question.

[Blown 472]

Originally posted by JakeAisA
The answer to your question is easily answered: what are the options?
a. Invade Saudi Arabia.
b. Convince the Saudi Royals that they need to help us.
c. Abandon the Saudis and the entire Middle East entirely.
Answer "a" is all out War in the Middle East. You want to see another "Vietnam"? That's the best way to bring Vietnam back.
Answer "c" is just as bad. We left the Taliban alone and observe what happened. We've left Africa alone, observe what's happened. This is the "reverse psychology" argument. It won't work. Bad people won't turn good or leave us alone if we act like we don't see them.
Answer "b" is the only viable option. The only way to crack down on the most potentially volotile society in the Middle East is to convince and pressure the Saudis to do it themselves.
Why dont we convince them with a cluster bomb??
The motive for attacking iraq was our safety, but the bulk of the flyers came from saudi, chances are alot better that the flyers were trained in state run schools then finding wmd's. So where does that leave us?

[Blown 472]

Originally posted by BradP
"The strategy makes pre-emptive war official policy against "rogue states" with the alleged potential to develop weapons of mass destruction. "To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries," the White House documents say, "the United States will, if necessary, act pre-emptively." To fight those countries the administration accuses of attaining (or even seeking) weapons of mass destruction, the planning documents threaten its own mass destruction: the possible first use of U.S. nuclear weapons. Admitting that this is a "fundamental change from the past," the White House documents state that U.S. military forces will use "pre-emptive measures" against such states, including "the full range of operational capabilities"—which many read as code for nuclear strikes. Indeed, this year's defense authorization bill includes new, low-yield nuclear weapons, including the "bunker buster."
Just a quick paragraph from the ass bandits pundit.
Just exactly what's wrong with this "new" policy?
Oh wait I know, we need to let them attack us first eerrrrr first again and again again. THEN we can respond, but not in a way that will upset the leftists lunatics.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Sieg Heil ass pirate.
Oh btw the "bunker buster" is not nuclear but don't let the facts get in your way.
Once again, how did we responde? bin ladin is a saudi, the flyers were saudi, so where are the cluster bombs? oh thats right bush had to get the bin ladin family out of the country the day the air space was shut down, due to the millions they poured into his failing oil company.

[Lake Pirate]

What question?

[mirvin]

Originally posted by Blown 472
So where does that leave us?
In great shape. The fighting is on THEIR land, not ours, just the way GW wanted it.
mirvin
;)

[JakeAisA]

Originally posted by Blown 472
Why dont we convince them with a cluster bomb??
The motive for attacking iraq was our safety, but the bulk of the flyers came from saudi, chances are alot better that the flyers were trained in state run schools then finding wmd's. So where does that leave us?
Not every situation is the same. Like I said before, things are somewhat flip flopped in Saudi Arabia.
When we bomb military targets in Iraq, we 're bombing the enemy. To bomb the enemy in Saudi Arabia we have to bomb private targets and that's not productive. It calls for a different strategy, a less military strategy.

[JakeAisA]

Originally posted by Blown 472
Once again, how did we responde? bin ladin is a saudi, the flyers were saudi, so where are the cluster bombs? oh thats right bush had to get the bin ladin family out of the country the day the air space was shut down, due to the millions they poured into his failing oil company.
Wrong. You're facts are just wrong.

[JakeAisA]

Originally posted by Lake Pirate
What question?
Middle of page two, half way down.

[Blown 472]

Originally posted by JakeAisA
Wrong. You're facts are just wrong.
Bin ladin is not a saudi?
15 of the 19 were not saudis?
bin ladin family didn't kick some money to bush?
You can find all this for yourself.

[Schiada76]

Bin Ladens family did not leave this counrtry under Bush's power. Even Clark admits it was his decision. That's info from the tin hat crowd.
On the Saudi front, they are stuck between the freaks of islam and us. I say we just blow hell out of them and get it over with.:D

[Lake Pirate]

You mean did I watch the video?
No, I didn't. It was out of context to the debate and I don't have to watch a brutal death to spark my patriotism or decide my vote.

[JakeAisA]

Originally posted by Blown 472
Bin ladin is not a saudi?
15 of the 19 were not saudis?
bin ladin family didn't kick some money to bush?
You can find all this for yourself.
1. TRUE
2. TRUE
3. FALSE - Bush worked the Carlisle Group for a short time, as did Bush 41, but after the Carlisle Group had ever dealt with the Bin Ladens.
And the point is what? Do you remember that Osama is one of 47 siblings? Do you remember that anybody wanting to conduct business in the oil industry in the Middle East is going to cross with the Bin Laden Family? Did you forget that Bush has ordered the capture of Bin Laden and has sent the US Military after anybody even closely tied to al Quada for the sole purpose of killing or capturing them?
What is your point?
Ask yourself "therefore what" more often.

[JakeAisA]

Originally posted by Lake Pirate
You mean did I watch the video?
No, I didn't. It was out of context to the debate and I don't have to watch a brutal death to spark my patriotism or decide my vote.
That is why this whole thing is a joke to you.

[mirvin]

THe funny thing is that everyone;s got all kinds of gripes, but nobody has any solutions. Nobody will say what they WOULD do, only that they don't like what Bush has done.
I LOVE what Bush has done. He did more to protect us in his first 2 years in office then Clinton did in 8 years.
mirvin

[Lake Pirate]

ok

[Blown 472]

Originally posted by JakeAisA
1. TRUE
2. TRUE
3. FALSE - Bush worked the Carlisle Group for a short time, as did Bush 41, but after the Carlisle Group had ever dealt with the Bin Ladens.
And the point is what? Do you remember that Osama is one of 47 siblings? Do you remember that anybody wanting to conduct business in the oil industry in the Middle East is going to cross with the Bin Laden Family? Did you forget that Bush has ordered the capture of Bin Laden and has sent the US Military after anybody even closely tied to al Quada for the sole purpose of killing or capturing them?
What is your point?
Ask yourself "therefore what" more often.
Is this convincing and pressuring them??
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0714/p01s01-wome.html
gw never owned a texas oil company?

[mirvin]

Originally posted by Blown 472
Is this convincing and pressuring them??
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0714/p01s01-wome.html
gw never owned a texas oil company?
Holy sh it, did you just reference the Christian Science Monitor???
Dang.
mirvin

[Blown 472]

Originally posted by mirvin
Holy sh it, did you just reference the Christian Science Monitor???
Dang.
mirvin
Here is some more for you.....
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0713/p01s02-usfp.html

[mirvin]

Originally posted by Blown 472
Here is some more for you.....
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0713/p01s02-usfp.html
I got a question. If they're neocons, what do they care what the rest of the world thinks? Woulnd't they just take over the world and not worry about what people think. Who cares what people think when they're dead?
That's the problem here, we're too worried about what the rest of the world thinks. Fu ck them. They will come groveling when they need us, and the next day they will curse us for being evil. Fu ck them. All of them.
mirvin

[JakeAisA]

Originally posted by mirvin
THe funny thing is that everyone;s got all kinds of gripes, but nobody has any solutions. Nobody will say what they WOULD do, only that they don't like what Bush has done.
I LOVE what Bush has done. He did more to protect us in his first 2 years in office then Clinton did in 8 years.
mirvin
Look at the "disastrous" results of this President's foreign policy.
1. The Taliban is gone. Women can remove thier burkas, they can go to school, etc. without being executed for it in Afghanistan.
2. Pakistan, one of the most dangerous hot spots before 911 is now kissing our ass.
3. al Quada has no safe haven anywhere. They HIDE in the hills of Afghanistan, they hide in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia. The Iranians don't want to admit they have al Quada operatives. The same for Syria.
4. Saddam Hussein is in captivity and will be tried for his crimes soon.
5. An Individual Rights protecting, Democratic experiment is being attempted in the Middle East for the first time EVER in Iraq! (Save Israel)
6. Iran has finally admitted to having a nuclear program of any kind. Sure, they say its for peaceful energy purposes, but they've admitted that for the first time ever in the past two years--a huge admition.
7. Lybia has agreed to give up its WMD programs and is willing to let the world come in and verify it.
8. Saudi Arabia is now engaging al Quada directly and is arresting and killing terrorists.
9. North Korea has admitted to the world that it lied to Bill Clinton and the U.S. and was developing Nukes. They're demanding "bi-lateral" discussion with us to discuss "our" options. We've obviously got the upper hand.
It goes on and on. This is the result of our disastrous Middle East policies over the past 3 years. The list is too long for these acheivements to be coincidents occuring unexplainedly under Bush's tenure.
Can somebody please list any other Presidents Middle East accomplishments that even come close to one of these points listed above?
I can name one...the first Gulf War, but that doesn't count right cuz 41 was a Bush too?

[BUSTI]

Since President Reagan There have only been two kinds of Americans: those that recognize real evil and wish to destroy it at every turn regardless of how unpopular that position maybe or those that want to rationalize evil and turn the blind eye to it to protect our popularity world wide.
With out question President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, Condaleeza Rice and Secy Rumsfield have the balls to call evil what it is and they have the political will to try and destroy it regardless of how popular it may make them at home or abroad. John Kerry and the demorats are far more interested in being popular abroad (namely the French and the Germans) and with their lefty supporters than they are staring down evil, calling what it is or having the guts to destroy it for fear of looking unpopular.
Another great difference from the Mighty Righties and the coward lefties is have you noticed that the people that have the guts to hate evil are always hated by the people that are unwilling or afraid to oppose evil?
President Bush made a decision to go to war in the middle east because he believed with all his heart that it was what was safe in the long run for America! He didn't ask "do you think it will make me popular?" He did it because it was the the right thing to do given all the information he had at the time. Unlike Kerry and the demorats and other lefties who would only have made that decision if it was politically safe or voter popular or popular with the Europeans.
And lefty pirate you refuse to watch the video and comment on it because you are afraid of the truth and the real face of the enemy. Because any sane person, I mean sane American, who wittness's that video can't possibly arrive at the conclusions you do. If you ded you would have to either face evil and support its destruction or like the other coward demorats like you .....you would just turn your blind eye in the face of evil and pretend it did not exist.
And you sanctamonious shit of using the Berg beheading to win an arguement...........YOU FING IDIOT THAT IS THE ARGUEMENT! THOSE PHUCS ARE EVIL AND NEED TO BE DESTROYED!
And by virtue of the fact your witless humor can't answer Jake's questions and by observing that your post have been reduced to short one word arguements it is obvios you have no arguements regarding this debate.
Your feable arguements over the war are unAmerican. The only arguement one can make against the war that is either moral or intellectually honest is in ones opinion 800 tragic deaths of servicemen are not worth the risk of crushing the most violent, murderous totalartarian regimes the middle east has ever seen and that those regimes were the most likely to have given suport to our enemies.

[Lake Pirate]

I have a sick headache right now but I'll be glad to shred your misinterpretations, obvious spins and out and out disregard for what's been said later tonight. (Hopefully.)

[Blown 472]

Originally posted by JakeAisA
Look at the "disastrous" results of this President's foreign policy.
1. The Taliban is gone. Women can remove thier burkas, they can go to school, etc. without being executed for it in Afghanistan.
2. Pakistan, one of the most dangerous hot spots before 911 is now kissing our ass.
3. al Quada has no safe haven anywhere. They HIDE in the hills of Afghanistan, they hide in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia. The Iranians don't want to admit they have al Quada operatives. The same for Syria.
4. Saddam Hussein is in captivity and will be tried for his crimes soon.
5. An Individual Rights protecting, Democratic experiment is being attempted in the Middle East for the first time EVER in Iraq! (Save Israel)
6. Iran has finally admitted to having a nuclear program of any kind. Sure, they say its for peaceful energy purposes, but they've admitted that for the first time ever in the past two years--a huge admition.
7. Lybia has agreed to give up its WMD programs and is willing to let the world come in and verify it.
8. Saudi Arabia is now engaging al Quada directly and is arresting and killing terrorists.
9. North Korea has admitted to the world that it lied to Bill Clinton and the U.S. and was developing Nukes. They're demanding "bi-lateral" discussion with us to discuss "our" options. We've obviously got the upper hand.
It goes on and on. This is the result of our disastrous Middle East policies over the past 3 years. The list is too long for these acheivements to be coincidents occuring unexplainedly under Bush's tenure.
Can somebody please list any other Presidents Middle East accomplishments that even come close to one of these points listed above?
I can name one...the first Gulf War, but that doesn't count right cuz 41 was a Bush too?
Sorry for the delay, (was drinking with the guy that cuts my lawn) did you read what I posted in reguard to number 8??

[Coach]

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January..... in the fair city of Detroit (Michigan) there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's one American city, folks ... about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq!
Worst president in history?
The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to the editor.
Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history. Let's clear up one point: We didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11.
Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims.
Lincoln allowed the US to fall into civil war. How would you like a nice Civil war today? You could go and kill your out of state relatives!
FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.
Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.
John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. I think history might show Eisenhower committed the troops and Kennedy was honoring that commitment.
Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.
Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.
Worst president in history? Come on!
The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...
It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation.
We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.
It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.
It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!

[Blown 472]

Originally posted by Coach
There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January..... in the fair city of Detroit (Michigan) there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's one American city, folks ... about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq!
Worst president in history?
The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to the editor.
Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history. Let's clear up one point: We didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11.
Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims.
Lincoln allowed the US to fall into civil war. How would you like a nice Civil war today? You could go and kill your out of state relatives!
FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.
Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.
John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. I think history might show Eisenhower committed the troops and Kennedy was honoring that commitment.
Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.
Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.
Worst president in history? Come on!
The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...
It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation.
We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.
It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.
It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!
Did iraq attack us?

[Dr. Eagle]

Originally posted by Blown 472
Did iraq attack us?
Fact: the Persian Gulf War never ended. It was brought to a halt by a truce with conditions. Final peace was never achieved.
Fact: one of those conditions was that the UN weapons inspectors have full and unfettered access to all institutions within Iraq. This did not happen as they were repeatedly denied entry into facitlities allowing time to move whatever materials in question were located at that facility.
Fact: Iraq repeatedly fired on coalition aircraft patrolling the no fly zones in an attempt to bring one down. No fly zones were established since as a result of the initial truce terms Iraq was allowed to fly helicopters under the pretense that damage to the infrastructure required it. They in turn used the helicopter gunships to quell revolts in the north and south. Consequently, no fly zones were established to protect Iraqi citizens from their own government.
Fact: after years of deceit, dodge and playing games, Iraq ejected the weapons inspectors in violation of the truce. Sites with materials in storage monitored by cameras had the cameras covered up and when the cameras were uncovered some time later... viola the materials were gone... warehouses were empty!
In my opinion that is when they should have been invaded... but slick willy just lobbed a few cruise missles their way and called it good.
The Gulf war was finally brought to an end last year. The insurgents acting within Iraq are a combination of locals that were negatively affected (baath party members) and Arab extremists that want a crack at the Americans. This too will pass... we will have to wait and see how long it will take us to withdraw from the country now that the Persian Gulf War is finally over.

[Blown 472]

Originally posted by Dr. Eagle
Fact: the Persian Gulf War never ended. It was brought to a halt by a truce with conditions. Final peace was never achieved.
Fact: one of those conditions was that the UN weapons inspectors have full and unfettered access to all institutions within Iraq. This did not happen as they were repeatedly denied entry into facitlities allowing time to move whatever materials in question were located at that facility.
Fact: Iraq repeatedly fired on coalition aircraft patrolling the no fly zones in an attempt to bring one down. No fly zones were established since as a result of the initial truce terms Iraq was allowed to fly helicopters under the pretense that damage to the infrastructure required it. They in turn used the helicopter gunships to quell revolts in the north and south. Consequently, no fly zones were established to protect Iraqi citizens from their own government.
Fact: after years of deceit, dodge and playing games, Iraq ejected the weapons inspectors in violation of the truce. Sites with materials in storage monitored by cameras had the cameras covered up and when the cameras were uncovered some time later... viola the materials were gone... warehouses were empty!
In my opinion that is when they should have been invaded... but slick willy just lobbed a few cruise missles their way and called it good.
The Gulf war was finally brought to an end last year. The insurgents acting within Iraq are a combination of locals that were negatively affected (baath party members) and Arab extremists that want a crack at the Americans. This too will pass... we will have to wait and see how long it will take us to withdraw from the country now that the Persian Gulf War is finally over.
That being said my post was in reguard to Coach's post about other countries attacking us. Iraq never did, and you all seem to forget that they were our pals during the 80's when there are pics of rummy shaking hands with saddam.
My whole point is, yes saddam was bad, yes he needed to go but the biggest attack on american soil was done by a bunch of saudis and americans are getting killed there and yet the gubment does nothing about it and now you have the saudis offering amnisty to terrorists and we sit back and watch, wtf??

[JakeAisA]

COACH: It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.
Wow. Hehehe.

[JakeAisA]

Originally posted by Blown 472
That being said my post was in reguard to Coach's post about other countries attacking us. Iraq never did, and you all seem to forget that they were our pals during the 80's when there are pics of rummy shaking hands with saddam.
My whole point is, yes saddam was bad, yes he needed to go but the biggest attack on american soil was done by a bunch of saudis and americans are getting killed there and yet the gubment does nothing about it and now you have the saudis offering amnisty to terrorists and we sit back and watch, wtf??
Blown, would you be a big supporter of Bush if tomorrow he decided to all of a sudden attack Saudi Arabia and North Korea?
The problem with the argument "what about this country and what about that country" is that most people who make that argument would never support attacking the other country in question! I love it when people say "why Iraq, isn't N. Korea a bigger threat?". When you ask them if they support attacking N. Korea they're left to with nothing but the pacifist argument.

[Dr. Eagle]

Originally posted by Blown 472
That being said my post was in reguard to Coach's post about other countries attacking us. Iraq never did, and you all seem to forget that they were our pals during the 80's when there are pics of rummy shaking hands with saddam.
My whole point is, yes saddam was bad, yes he needed to go but the biggest attack on american soil was done by a bunch of saudis and americans are getting killed there and yet the gubment does nothing about it and now you have the saudis offering amnisty to terrorists and we sit back and watch, wtf??
Well, honestly Blown... I haven't forgotten any of that stuff. I know that we have crawled into bed with a bunch of losers over the years (the shah of Iran was a good example).
I agree we need to do something about the Saudi's... just not sure what. Their government needs to take a VERY hard line against the fundamentals of terrorist formation, in their media, with their clerics all the way down to the transfer of moneys to the "charities" that support a lot of this crap.
Given our relationship with the Saudi government dating back to the earlier 20th century, it seems that a lot of stuff may be going on behind the scenes... and no I don't believe it is the crap Mickey Moore intimates in his film... I mean we are doing some arm twisting, not enough in my opinion... but I am sure it is happening.

[Blown 472]

Originally posted by JakeAisA
Blown, would you be a big supporter of Bush if tomorrow he decided to all of a sudden attack Saudi Arabia and North Korea?
The problem with the argument "what about this country and what about that country" is that most people who make that argument would never support attacking the other country in question! I love it when people say "why Iraq, isn't N. Korea a bigger threat?". When you ask them if they support attacking N. Korea they're left to with nothing but the pacifist argument.
I am all about attacking a country that has a clear and definded link to the death of americans.

[ITSALLGOOD69]

F@#K SPIKE LEE HE'S A FAG!:yuk: AND JOHN KERRY :yuk:

[JakeAisA]

Originally posted by Dr. Eagle
Well, honestly Blown... I haven't forgotten any of that stuff. I know that we have crawled into bed with a bunch of losers over the years (the shah of Iran was a good example).
I agree we need to do something about the Saudi's... just not sure what. Their government needs to take a VERY hard line against the fundamentals of terrorist formation, in their media, with their clerics all the way down to the transfer of moneys to the "charities" that support a lot of this crap.
Given our relationship with the Saudi government dating back to the earlier 20th century, it seems that a lot of stuff may be going on behind the scenes... and no I don't believe it is the crap Mickey Moore intimates in his film... I mean we are doing some arm twisting, not enough in my opinion... but I am sure it is happening.
Every President since Eisenhower has kissed the asses of the Saudi Royal Family. Why? Because they have the oil, they control OPEC. The Western World breaths oil...it's the West's "Air" that keeps us alive. Like it or not, that is a fact.
Also, it is a fact that the United States is the only country in the world that stands by it's word, or tries to. The rest of the world openly engages in duplicity--we're the only country that changes it's leadership when it's found out that they have said one thing and did another or played two parties against eachother.
Having said that, we have to accept that there are bad countries out there run by bad people and they tange amongst themselves all the time. These situations, from our perspective, are very tough because often both sides are poor bedfellows. Many times we cannot just ignore as allowing the worst character of the two to prevail could be a threat to America.
So, sometimes we have to choose a side or insert ourselves into the situation so as to ensure the safest outcome for America is a acheived.
This balancing act is what makes foreign policy as a moral country so damn difficult. Examples today are countries like Saudi Arabia and, better yet, Pakistan. Pakistan is no freind of the US but we needed to use them to attack the Taliban, to go after al Quada, and to gain influence so we can hopefully convince them they ought not use thier nukes unwisely. They're bad people. Musharrif is a bad guy. But Osama is worse.
The same was true during the 80's. Iran was an enemy state who was actively supporting and funding terrorist activities against the West and America. Remember the hostages? Iran was supported the Soviets who were trying to gain influence in the Middle East which had major implication s in terms of the Cold War. We supported Iraq becuase those two countries fighting it out was preferrable to Iran gaining in size and strength.
It was the right move. This terrorist problem we face now is nothing compare to Nuclear Holocost at the hands of the Soviets

[JakeAisA]

Originally posted by Blown 472
I am all about attacking a country that has a clear and definded link to the death of americans.
Then you're not making the argument I accused you of making. Sorry.
Your right about the Saudis in many respects. Their brand of radical Islam, Wahbabist Islam I think it is, is the brand that has spurned all this anti-West, anti-Man, terrorist shit.
It's not the same religion in Saudi Arabia as it is India or Malaysia.