Bush says Dems don't have a plan for Iraq or America

[Knotbad]

We beg to differ...
Plan
If there's one thing you can count on right along with death and taxes, it's that every day between now and November 7 -- and probably multiple times a day -- George W. Bush will grab a microphone before a large crowd and lie about the lack of ideas coming from Democrats on national security.
Here's Bush just today in Missouri: "If you listen carefully to what the Democrats say about Iraq, you think about what they're saying about their plan for success, there isn't one. This is a major political party that has no plan for success in Iraq."
But unlike some of the half-truths and distortions that come out of the White House and the Republican National Committee, where the sheer slipperiness of them makes getting the truth out kind of a dicey proposition, this one is as easy and clear-cut as it can be.
It was just two months ago that Democrats rolled out the Real Security Act of 2006, a plan whose legislative description left no doubt that Democrats had a plan, saying that it was designed "to provide real national security, restore United States leadership, and implement tough and smart policies to win the war on terror."
"The Real Security Act of 2006 marks a major change from status quo Bush Republican policies that have left America less safe than it must be," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) in introducing the plan. "Unveiled against the backdrop of a new White House media offensive, the legislation spells out the tough and smart path to make America more secure and to deal more effectively with threats that confront America at home and abroad."
These days, you would never know that such a plan exists for two reasons. The first it that it was killed by the Senate GOP leadership on September 13, 2006 on a roll-call vote that went almost straight down party lines. The same Republicans who killed the Democratic plan now walk around saying the Democrats have no plan.
The second reason that the Democratic strategy is so hard to find is that the corporate media continues to let the no-plan nonsense go unchallenged because, I suppose, it would be too much like real work to read the 528-page piece of security legislation that the Democrats tried to pass.
The key points of the Real Security Act of 2006 include the following:
* Begin a new era of sensibly dealing with the quagmire that is the U.S.'s occupation of Iraq. Democrats would begin redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq to face terrorist threats around the world, including the new countries hosting Al-Qaeda since the Iraq war began. It also provides for real Congressional oversight to avoid further big-money losses to crooked defense contractors, accustomed to no-bid contracts and a tolerance for fraud and abuse.
* Refocus America on the real war on terror by making sure the U.S. continues to pursue Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice and increase levels of Special Operations forces to kill and capture the terrorists where they are and to better protect Americans at home.
* Provide updated tools, consistent with true American values, so we can bring terrorists to justice, while also following the law and the Constitution and work to revise the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as needed to ensure intelligence agencies have the tools needed to defeat the terrorists.
* Implement all 41 recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, including providing adequate resources for first responders, distributing homeland security funding based on risk, improving intelligence oversight, bolstering Congressional oversight of homeland security, strengthening public diplomacy and improving tracking of nuclear weapons material.
* Equip the intelligence community to fight against terrorists by passing the Intelligence authorization bill, giving the CIA the resources to conduct aggressive and effective intelligence gathering. For the first time in 28 years, the Republican-controlled Congress has failed to pass the bill providing these desperately-needed resources.
* Invest additional money to secure America's ports, rails, roads, airports, chemical and nuclear plants and mass transit systems by improving and increasing screenings and increasing security of containers and radiation screenings.
The first time you've heard about this stuff? I thought so. But the facts and the Congressional Record don't lie.
You can get the entire text of the Real Security Act of 2006 here -- but be warned, it's a 1.1 megabyte PDF file of ideas Democrats allegedly don’t have -- and you can see the video of Harry Reid describing the plan here.
So if you've always sensed that Bush, Cheney and the Republicans were lying about the Democratic stance on national security, here's your proof -- please spread it around.
posted by Bob Geiger at 11/03/2006 03:44:00 PM

[QuickJet]

You are so blind. Where in all of that does it give a plan for Iraq? All it says is re-deploy troops from Iraq to other areas around the world. So basically ditch the responsabilities in Iraq. They've been saying that all along. Nothing new.
The dems have no plan and never have. All they have are critisisms.
Where in that BS did it say anything about our boarders? How can one protect our homeland while at the same time professing allegiance to those who want open boarders. The dems are weak on all the issues. If the Dems had 1/2 the nuts they talk about, someone might actually believe the BS they spew. Funny how they have fooled you though. Typical :rolleyes:

[3 daytona`s]

We beg to differ...
Plan
If there's one thing you can count on right along with death and taxes, it's that every day between now and November 7 -- and probably multiple times a day -- George W. Bush will grab a microphone before a large crowd and lie about the lack of ideas coming from Democrats on national security.
Here's Bush just today in Missouri: "If you listen carefully to what the Democrats say about Iraq, you think about what they're saying about their plan for success, there isn't one. This is a major political party that has no plan for success in Iraq."
But unlike some of the half-truths and distortions that come out of the White House and the Republican National Committee, where the sheer slipperiness of them makes getting the truth out kind of a dicey proposition, this one is as easy and clear-cut as it can be.
It was just two months ago that Democrats rolled out the Real Security Act of 2006, a plan whose legislative description left no doubt that Democrats had a plan, saying that it was designed "to provide real national security, restore United States leadership, and implement tough and smart policies to win the war on terror."
"The Real Security Act of 2006 marks a major change from status quo Bush Republican policies that have left America less safe than it must be," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) in introducing the plan. "Unveiled against the backdrop of a new White House media offensive, the legislation spells out the tough and smart path to make America more secure and to deal more effectively with threats that confront America at home and abroad."
These days, you would never know that such a plan exists for two reasons. The first it that it was killed by the Senate GOP leadership on September 13, 2006 on a roll-call vote that went almost straight down party lines. The same Republicans who killed the Democratic plan now walk around saying the Democrats have no plan.
The second reason that the Democratic strategy is so hard to find is that the corporate media continues to let the no-plan nonsense go unchallenged because, I suppose, it would be too much like real work to read the 528-page piece of security legislation that the Democrats tried to pass.
The key points of the Real Security Act of 2006 include the following:
* Begin a new era of sensibly dealing with the quagmire that is the U.S.'s occupation of Iraq. Democrats would begin redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq to face terrorist threats around the world, including the new countries hosting Al-Qaeda since the Iraq war began. It also provides for real Congressional oversight to avoid further big-money losses to crooked defense contractors, accustomed to no-bid contracts and a tolerance for fraud and abuse.
* Refocus America on the real war on terror by making sure the U.S. continues to pursue Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice and increase levels of Special Operations forces to kill and capture the terrorists where they are and to better protect Americans at home.
* Provide updated tools, consistent with true American values, so we can bring terrorists to justice, while also following the law and the Constitution and work to revise the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as needed to ensure intelligence agencies have the tools needed to defeat the terrorists.
* Implement all 41 recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, including providing adequate resources for first responders, distributing homeland security funding based on risk, improving intelligence oversight, bolstering Congressional oversight of homeland security, strengthening public diplomacy and improving tracking of nuclear weapons material.
* Equip the intelligence community to fight against terrorists by passing the Intelligence authorization bill, giving the CIA the resources to conduct aggressive and effective intelligence gathering. For the first time in 28 years, the Republican-controlled Congress has failed to pass the bill providing these desperately-needed resources.
* Invest additional money to secure America's ports, rails, roads, airports, chemical and nuclear plants and mass transit systems by improving and increasing screenings and increasing security of containers and radiation screenings.
The first time you've heard about this stuff? I thought so. But the facts and the Congressional Record don't lie.
You can get the entire text of the Real Security Act of 2006 here -- but be warned, it's a 1.1 megabyte PDF file of ideas Democrats allegedly don’t have -- and you can see the video of Harry Reid describing the plan here.
So if you've always sensed that Bush, Cheney and the Republicans were lying about the Democratic stance on national security, here's your proof -- please spread it around.
posted by Bob Geiger at 11/03/2006 03:44:00 PM
You are going to get responses on this------- WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[QuickJet]

We beg to differ...
* Equip the intelligence community to fight against terrorists by passing the Intelligence authorization bill, giving the CIA the resources to conduct aggressive and effective intelligence gathering. For the first time in 28 years, the Republican-controlled Congress has failed to pass the bill providing these desperately-needed resources.
Ha ha ha, What resources????
Dems have been steadfast AGAINST intelligence gathering since the begining. They don't even want our CIA to listen in on phone calls (a major source of information gathering) What makes anyone think they really care what the hell is going on.

[Old Texan]

I'm beginning to get the feeling we have found where John Kerry is hiding from the press. Upstairs in MaMa Knotheads attic pounding on his keyboard. This guy sounds just like Purple Heart John.
By the way did Kerry get another purple heart for shooting himself in the foot this past week?

[bigq]

The key points of the Real Security Act of 2006 include the following:
* Begin a new era of sensibly dealing with the quagmire that is the U.S.'s occupation of Iraq. Democrats would begin redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq to face terrorist threats around the world, including the new countries hosting Al-Qaeda since the Iraq war began. It also provides for real Congressional oversight to avoid further big-money losses to crooked defense contractors, accustomed to no-bid contracts and a tolerance for fraud and abuse.
You mean like they did all through the 90's with the failures then ?
* Refocus America on the real war on terror by making sure the U.S. continues to pursue Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice and increase levels of Special Operations forces to kill and capture the terrorists where they are and to better protect Americans at home.
Yea I am sure we are not looking for him now
:rolleyes:
* Provide updated tools, consistent with true American values, so we can bring terrorists to justice, while also following the law and the Constitution and work to revise the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as needed to ensure intelligence agencies have the tools needed to defeat the terrorists.
hahaha
* Implement all 41 recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, including providing adequate resources for first responders, distributing homeland security funding based on risk, improving intelligence oversight, bolstering Congressional oversight of homeland security, strengthening public diplomacy and improving tracking of nuclear weapons material.
Ok I'll give them that one. IF! it really is based on risk. the money they pass out now is just another handout, it's a joke and does not go to the cities at risk.
* Equip the intelligence community to fight against terrorists by passing the Intelligence authorization bill, giving the CIA the resources to conduct aggressive and effective intelligence gathering. For the first time in 28 years, the Republican-controlled Congress has failed to pass the bill providing these desperately-needed resources.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
* Invest additional money to secure America's ports, rails, roads, airports, chemical and nuclear plants and mass transit systems by improving and increasing screenings and increasing security of containers and radiation screenings.
hmmm, no boarder control at all, just like Bush! Maybe worse if we can not put pressure them which is the only reason Bush sighned the boarder fence bill, not that he wanted to

[OGShocker]

We beg to differ...
Plan
If there's one thing you can count on right along with death and taxes, it's that every day between now and November 7 -- and probably multiple times a day -- George W. Bush will grab a microphone before a large crowd and lie about the lack of ideas coming from Democrats on national security.
I did not hear the lies you were hoping for.
Here's Bush just today in Missouri: "If you listen carefully to what the Democrats say about Iraq, you think about what they're saying about their plan for success, there isn't one. This is a major political party that has no plan for success in Iraq."
I do not believe they have a "success" plan. We shall see over the coming months.
But unlike some of the half-truths and distortions that come out of the White House and the Republican National Committee, where the sheer slipperiness of them makes getting the truth out kind of a dicey proposition, this one is as easy and clear-cut as it can be.
"hmmm, easy?"
It was just two months ago that Democrats rolled out the Real Security Act of 2006, a plan whose legislative description left no doubt that Democrats had a plan, saying that it was designed "to provide real national security, restore United States leadership, and implement tough and smart policies to win the war on terror."
"The Real Security Act of 2006 marks a major change from status quo Bush Republican policies that have left America less safe than it must be," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) in introducing the plan. "Unveiled against the backdrop of a new White House media offensive, the legislation spells out the tough and smart path to make America more secure and to deal more effectively with threats that confront America at home and abroad."
Harry's plan is a simple C&R plan. If the government of Iraq does not perform to the time line laid out by Harry and his party, they will start pulling troops out of the region. This threat is flawed! We need to tell the Iraqi leaders if they do not stop the bloodshed and push to end the violence by the first quarter of 2007, we will. We need to inform the leaders a sizable percentage of the Shia population would be in danger from the carnage we would unleash upon those people bent on killing U.S. soldiers. We should show them that WAR is hell. We do not need to leave the region at a time of instability
These days, you would never know that such a plan exists for two reasons. The first it that it was killed by the Senate GOP leadership on September 13, 2006 on a roll-call vote that went almost straight down party lines. The same Republicans who killed the Democratic plan now walk around saying the Democrats have no plan.
The Republicans "killed" a flawed bill put up by the other party to point out perceived differences between the two parties.
The second reason that the Democratic strategy is so hard to find is that the corporate media continues to let the no-plan nonsense go unchallenged because, I suppose, it would be too much like real work to read the 528-page piece of security legislation that the Democrats tried to pass.
corporate media???
The key points of the Real Security Act of 2006 include the following:
* Begin a new era of sensibly dealing with the quagmire that is the U.S.'s occupation of Iraq. Democrats would begin redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq to face terrorist threats around the world, including the new countries hosting Al-Qaeda since the Iraq war began. **It also provides for real Congressional oversight to avoid further big-money losses to crooked defense contractors, accustomed to no-bid contracts and a tolerance for fraud and abuse.
Cut and RUN!
**KBR/Halliburton hearings will be a great way to start an era of the bipartisanship Rep. Nancy Pelosi spoke of last night. No one can hold a candle to US politicians when it comes to being "crooked" regardless of party.
* Refocus America on the real war on terror by making sure the U.S. continues to pursue Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice and increase levels of Special Operations forces to kill and capture the terrorists where they are and to better protect Americans at home.
Should we invade a sovereign nation to hunt down UBL and his buddies regardless of which Nation? It was the Democrat party who gutted our intelligence and Spec Ops communities, under then President Clinton. It was he who took a "law and order" approach to terrorists worldwide.
* Provide updated tools, consistent with true American values, so we can bring terrorists to justice, while also following the law and the Constitution and work to revise the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as needed to ensure intelligence agencies have the tools needed to defeat the terrorists.
It was the Democrat party which fought the Patriot Act, Gitmo, wire taps and so many of the tools which have kept us safe at home. You now tell us Sen. Harry Reid (D) who bragged how HE killed the Patriot Act, wants to give the "tools" to stop terror?
* Implement all 41 recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, including providing adequate resources for first responders, distributing homeland security funding based on risk, improving intelligence oversight, bolstering Congressional oversight of homeland security, strengthening public diplomacy and improving tracking of nuclear weapons material.
Are these the same recommendations they fought tooth and nail? eg. the formation of The Department of Homeland Security?
* Equip the intelligence community to fight against terrorists by passing the Intelligence authorization bill, giving the CIA the resources to conduct aggressive and effective intelligence gathering. For the first time in 28 years, the Republican-controlled Congress has failed to pass the bill providing these desperately-needed resources.
I think I addressed this above.
* Invest additional money to secure America's ports, rails, roads, airports, chemical and nuclear plants and mass transit systems by improving and increasing screenings and increasing security of containers and radiation screenings.
This nation move freely and our economy is strong. Placing more security on system which are, by most standards, already quite secure would be window dressing at best.
The first time you've heard about this stuff? I thought so. But the facts and the Congressional Record don't lie.
You can get the entire text of the Real Security Act of 2006 here -- but be warned, it's a 1.1 megabyte PDF file of ideas Democrats allegedly don’t have -- and you can see the video of Harry Reid describing the plan here.
So if you've always sensed that Bush, Cheney and the Republicans were lying about the Democratic stance on national security, here's your proof -- please spread it around.
Civil discourse is tough at times but, I think you could at least address your President and Vice-President by their titles
posted by Bob Geiger at 11/03/2006 03:44:00 PM
The ball is now in the "court" of the Democrat party. We will see how well they play with it and others.
Good luck and may God bless our great Nation.

[eliminatedsprinter]

We beg to differ...
Plan
If there's one thing you can count on right along with death and taxes, it's that every day between now and November 7 -- and probably multiple times a day -- George W. Bush will grab a microphone before a large crowd and lie about the lack of ideas coming from Democrats on national security.
Here's Bush just today in Missouri: "If you listen carefully to what the Democrats say about Iraq, you think about what they're saying about their plan for success, there isn't one. This is a major political party that has no plan for success in Iraq."
But unlike some of the half-truths and distortions that come out of the White House and the Republican National Committee, where the sheer slipperiness of them makes getting the truth out kind of a dicey proposition, this one is as easy and clear-cut as it can be.
It was just two months ago that Democrats rolled out the Real Security Act of 2006, a plan whose legislative description left no doubt that Democrats had a plan, saying that it was designed "to provide real national security, restore United States leadership, and implement tough and smart policies to win the war on terror."
"The Real Security Act of 2006 marks a major change from status quo Bush Republican policies that have left America less safe than it must be," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) in introducing the plan. "Unveiled against the backdrop of a new White House media offensive, the legislation spells out the tough and smart path to make America more secure and to deal more effectively with threats that confront America at home and abroad."
These days, you would never know that such a plan exists for two reasons. The first it that it was killed by the Senate GOP leadership on September 13, 2006 on a roll-call vote that went almost straight down party lines. The same Republicans who killed the Democratic plan now walk around saying the Democrats have no plan.
The second reason that the Democratic strategy is so hard to find is that the corporate media continues to let the no-plan nonsense go unchallenged because, I suppose, it would be too much like real work to read the 528-page piece of security legislation that the Democrats tried to pass.
The key points of the Real Security Act of 2006 include the following:
* Begin a new era of sensibly dealing with the quagmire that is the U.S.'s occupation of Iraq. Democrats would begin redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq to face terrorist threats around the world, including the new countries hosting Al-Qaeda since the Iraq war began. It also provides for real Congressional oversight to avoid further big-money losses to crooked defense contractors, accustomed to no-bid contracts and a tolerance for fraud and abuse.
* Refocus America on the real war on terror by making sure the U.S. continues to pursue Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice and increase levels of Special Operations forces to kill and capture the terrorists where they are and to better protect Americans at home.
* Provide updated tools, consistent with true American values, so we can bring terrorists to justice, while also following the law and the Constitution and work to revise the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as needed to ensure intelligence agencies have the tools needed to defeat the terrorists.
* Implement all 41 recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, including providing adequate resources for first responders, distributing homeland security funding based on risk, improving intelligence oversight, bolstering Congressional oversight of homeland security, strengthening public diplomacy and improving tracking of nuclear weapons material.
* Equip the intelligence community to fight against terrorists by passing the Intelligence authorization bill, giving the CIA the resources to conduct aggressive and effective intelligence gathering. For the first time in 28 years, the Republican-controlled Congress has failed to pass the bill providing these desperately-needed resources.
* Invest additional money to secure America's ports, rails, roads, airports, chemical and nuclear plants and mass transit systems by improving and increasing screenings and increasing security of containers and radiation screenings.
The first time you've heard about this stuff? I thought so. But the facts and the Congressional Record don't lie.
You can get the entire text of the Real Security Act of 2006 here -- but be warned, it's a 1.1 megabyte PDF file of ideas Democrats allegedly don’t have -- and you can see the video of Harry Reid describing the plan here.
So if you've always sensed that Bush, Cheney and the Republicans were lying about the Democratic stance on national security, here's your proof -- please spread it around.
posted by Bob Geiger at 11/03/2006 03:44:00 PM
This "plan" is nothing but a bunch of empty reitoric. It's like a Senator Joe Biden speech, in that it uses way too many words to say nothing of any substance.

[centerhill condor]

This "plan" is nothing but a bunch of empty reitoric. It's like a Senator Joe Biden speech, in that it uses way too many words to say nothing of any substance.
and the voters love it! what to do?
Best news is now that the dems are in charge we'll never do anything wrong!

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Well, I guess we get to see their plan in action now, hold on to your arse, and don't expect them to bring the vaseline.
Hey Knotbad, who are you going to blame when the next tax increase trenches the economy in again?

[AzMandella]

That's the best laugh I've had in awhile.So the dem's are going to do what they should have done durring the Clinton administration.Will this also include scaling down the military even moreso than Clinton did.So that in time of need they are under staffed and ill equiped just like now but only worse?I seem to remember Bush trying to appropriate funds for body armor and humvees only to have the dems vote against ti and then blame Bush for the lack of protection our troops have.If history has shown us anything it is that the Dem's are nothing but a bunch of nutless windbabs with the spine of a slug.

[AzMandella]

Hey Knotbad, who are you going to blame when the next tax increase trenches the economy in again?
Yeah and get ready for higher intrestrates,lower property values(which will be funny since the great democratic state of California where everyone cashed in to buy thier big boats and toys)so the rest of us taxpayers can pay to bail out all the lending institutions that go belly up because the people owe way more than their property is worth.In short Bye Bye Economy!

[deltaAce]

Yeah and get ready for higher intrestrates,lower property values(which will be funny since the great democratic state of California where everyone cashed in to buy thier big boats and toys)so the rest of us taxpayers can pay to bail out all the lending institutions that go belly up because the people owe way more than their property is worth.In short Bye Bye Economy!
Thats a chilling forecast that sounds frightfully probable.

[eliminatedsprinter]

Be thankfull for our governments checks and balances. None of this can happen unless President Bush continues to have trouble finding his veto pen. However, if a dem gets in the White House in 08, it will be the lunacy of 93 and 94 all over again. Only next time around it will be times 2, because they are even farther left than they were back then. :crossx:

[Seadog]

The good news for the Democrats is Nancy Peloski just announced that her bribe minimum has just doubled.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

The good news for the Democrats is Nancy Peloski just announced that her bribe minimum has just doubled.
That would be so funny, if it weren't sooooo likely. :idea:

[HighRoller]

I see Iraq going one of two ways:
1.)"Redeployment"(Cut and Run) within the next year so that Hilary can say Bush made a bad decision BUT the Dems fixed it. (In other words, he gets the blame and they get the credit) Or...
2.)The Dems, media and all other lefty sources suddenly start reporting all the "positive" events occurring in Iraq like they should have done all along. Death will no longer be the primary motivator for news, and all of the sudden the war will be dubbed successful even though nothing changed. This will allow Pelosi, Reid and their ilk to brag about how they "fixed" the quagmire and give Hilary a platform as a "strong" candidate. In case you laugh at this, the news out of Afghanistan has been great since Rummy resigned and the Dems won.....Hmmmm.....

[Knotbad]

The good news for the Democrats is Nancy Peloski just announced that her bribe minimum has just doubled.
You been listening to druggie Rush too much.

[deltaAce]

I see Iraq going one of two ways:
1.)"Redeployment"(Cut and Run) within the next year so that Hilary can say Bush made a bad decision BUT the Dems fixed it. (In other words, he gets the blame and they get the credit) Or...
2.)The Dems, media and all other lefty sources suddenly start reporting all the "positive" events occurring in Iraq like they should have done all along. Death will no longer be the primary motivator for news, and all of the sudden the war will be dubbed successful even though nothing changed. This will allow Pelosi, Reid and their ilk to brag about how they "fixed" the quagmire and give Hilary a platform as a "strong" candidate. In case you laugh at this, the news out of Afghanistan has been great since Rummy resigned and the Dems won.....Hmmmm.....
So true, the media can taint the news to their liking which results in sheeple that vote democrat, then the media goes into damage control to hide their enept performance.

[deltaAce]

You been listening to druggie Rush too much.
Rush is straight up sober, but even when he had a weakness for pain medication he was still miles ahead of any other broadcaster. If he was just talking nonsense his program would have fell years ago. He does a great job of pointing out the hipocracy of the libs in the media & government. That is valuable information you won't hear from your fake smiley faced news comentators on TV.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Oh, by the way knot, here's their plan, better hit Wal-Mart for Vaseline:
The agenda is on the table now.
Investigations of the entire Bush white house
Increase revenue to fix the defecit
Redeploy troops within 4 to 6 months to Okinawa
Our current UN ambassaador is a gonner
Hillary is back with Health Care, cheap and for all

[SHOTKALLIN]

Iraqui people are not brave enough to fight for themselves or they are too stupid not to. Don't know what thier problem is. I am ready to let them sink or swim.

[IMPATIENT 1]

i love when i read someone's posts attacking demo.. what has the republicans done for us in the past 8yrs. other than higher gas prices, richer rich people, keepin general public in a constant fear of terrorist attacks. i wonder how many republicans there are in this country makin less than 100k a yr.? not nearly as many as the democrats i'd bet.
i'm a nobody, but i'm a nobody that's intelligent enough to recognize if you give a group of people(republicans) 8yrs to get shiat rite, and the people they govern are in worse shape than before, well its time to change out that group of people. i read the paper every mornin, i watch cnn, fox all the big news channels and i stay current with my state/local area government. i personally would hate to see another rep. ran government anytime soon, the country needs to recover from this last group of lyin, rich, war dodging(yep i'm mean bush!)dip shiats that got richer will the mid class took the brunt of the work. how many troops do you think are rich?? does the war they're fighting benefit them at all, none i can see.
i'm diehard democrat, but i did vote for a republican judge, tax assessor, and a couple other repubs. when i voted 2 wks back becuase i believed they were honest and rite for the job, had nothing to do with my party line!

[eliminatedsprinter]

Iraqui people are not brave enough to fight for themselves or they are too stupid not to. Don't know what thier problem is. I am ready to let them sink or swim.
They only fight for Allah. :skull:
Or to help Democrats get elected over here.. ;)

[IMPATIENT 1]

Iraqui people are not brave enough to fight for themselves or they are too stupid not to. Don't know what thier problem is. I am ready to let them sink or swim.
they've got u.s. troops fightin for them, i can't wait to see that place go to shiat when we pull out. its kinda like that little punk kid(iraq) on the playground who gets the other bigger kids(u.s.a.) to woop anyone who pisses the little punk kid off, what happens when the bigger kids quit helpin out. either the little punk kid learns to fight , or gets his ass handed to him daily.

[IMPATIENT 1]

They only fight for Allah. :skull:
Or to help Democrats get elected over here.. ;)
lol, let em meet him alittle sooner then, get our troops out!

[eliminatedsprinter]

i love when i read someone's posts attacking demo.. what has the republicans done for us in the past 8yrs. other than higher gas prices, richer rich people, keepin general public in a constant fear of terrorist attacks. i wonder how many republicans there are in this country makin less than 100k a yr.? not nearly as many as the democrats i'd bet.
i'm a nobody, but i'm a nobody that's intelligent enough to recognize if you give a group of people(republicans) 8yrs to get shiat rite, and the people they govern are in worse shape than before, well its time to change out that group of people. i read the paper every mornin, i watch cnn, fox all the big news channels and i stay current with my state/local area government. i personally would hate to see another rep. ran government anytime soon, the country needs to recover from this last group of lyin, rich, war dodging(yep i'm mean bush!)dip shiats that got richer will the mid class took the brunt of the work. how many troops do you think are rich?? does the war they're fighting benefit them at all, none i can see.
i'm diehard democrat, but i did vote for a republican judge, tax assessor, and a couple other repubs. when i voted 2 wks back becuase i believed they were honest and rite for the job, had nothing to do with my party line!
I am a registerd Democrat, but I no longer vote for them. The party has moved far too left for me. I believe in the individual freedom and limited government principles that this country was founded on. The Democratic Party platform is now way to far removed from those ideas. These times suck for a person like me. I am forced to vote either for Repulicians who brake promises I wish they would keep, or for Democrats who's awful promises I fear they might keep. :yuk:

[mickeyfinn]

i love when i read someone's posts attacking demo.. what has the republicans done for us in the past 8yrs. other than higher gas prices, richer rich people, keepin general public in a constant fear of terrorist attacks. i wonder how many republicans there are in this country makin less than 100k a yr.? not nearly as many as the democrats i'd bet.
!
You are probably right, but I'll bet if filter out the unemployed, uneducated and people who have lived out of mine and your wallet(welfare) sometime in the last 8 years the number would be much different. Without the poor voting themselves more of other peoples money the dems would be sunk.

[eliminatedsprinter]

i wonder how many republicans there are in this country makin less than 100k a yr.? not nearly as many as the democrats i'd bet.
Correct (outside of the south at least)
The Democrats know that the poor and poorly educated are the numerical bulk of their base. Therefore, their policys must insure that as many people as possible remain in poverty to keep thier base strong. I have long suspected that this was the motive behind many of their policys.
You are also correct that the rich are getting richer. What you omit is that more people are getting rich than ever before. Right now the U.S.A. (for the last couple of years) has just become the only nation in recorded history to have more wealthy people who are self made than have inherited wealth.
The Democrats must put an end to that by raising the taxes of the rich, which by their definition (that they seldome ever state) are mostly people you and I would regard as middle class, as quickly as possible. Their first step must be to let those awful "tax cuts for the rich" (individuals making over 40k and families making almost 80k per year) expire.
There is no way the Democrats can allow the middle class to keep enough of their money to invest (or from their investments) to allow them less difficult access to wealth. If they let that happen many of them would most likely become Republicians. :2purples:
Allowing the great unwashed masses to achieve financial success would spell the end of the bulk of the Democrats base and make their ultra wealthy supporters very unhappy by destroying much of the exclusivity of their currenty lavish lifestyle.

[IMPATIENT 1]

that's why i'm voting green party next time, lol :) just phukin with ya, i haven't given up on the other 2 parties yet. we need "good men" back in the white house, be it demo. or repub. i don't care, just a damn good man with brass bowlin balls between his legs!
i'll run for president next time, you guys can vote for me. i've smoked weed, i've been drunk off my azz more than a few times, i've cheated on my woman, but i also have the balls to stand up in frt. of the entire country and admit to my mistakes!i'm now a grown man who lives by his integrity, i know what i've done wrong, and have corrected those mistakes.i want a president like chris rock in that movie "head of state", that's the kinda pres. i want!

[centerhill condor]

i'll run for president next time, you guys can vote for me. i've smoked weed, i've been drunk off my azz more than a few times, i've cheated on my woman, but i also have the balls to stand up in frt. of the entire country and admit to my mistakes!i'm now a grown man who lives by his integrity, i know what i've done wrong, and have corrected those mistakes.i want a president like chris rock in that movie "head of state", that's the kinda pres. i want!
only in OK! I'm behind ya man...way behind you! The people don't want an honest man in the white house. They want someone they can buy for cash or credit! You'd be run out in the first primary as "too honest"!
I congratulate the dems! they've run an outstanding marketing campaign! the only problem is that is has been proven a failure in the early '00s and 'round '36!
I just wish we weren't so dogoned advanced....we're sooo good at killin' !

[Poster X]

Correct (outside of the south at least)
The Democrats know that the poor and poorly educated are the numerical bulk of their base. Therefore, their policys must insure that as many people as possible remain in poverty to keep thier base strong. I have long suspected that this was the motive behind many of their policys.
You are also correct that the rich are getting richer. What you omit is that more people are getting rich than ever before. Right now the U.S.A. (for the last couple of years) has just become the only nation in recorded history to have more wealthy people who are self made than have inherited wealth.
The Democrats must put an end to that by raising the taxes of the rich, which by their definition (that they seldome ever state) are mostly people you and I would regard as middle class, as quickly as possible. Their first step must be to let those awful "tax cuts for the rich" (individuals making over 40k and families making almost 80k per year) expire.
There is no way the Democrats can allow the middle class to keep enough of their money to invest (or from their investments) to allow them less difficult access to wealth. If they let that happen many of them would most likely become Republicians. :2purples:
Allowing the great unwashed masses to achieve financial success would spell the end of the bulk of the Democrats base and make their ultra wealthy supporters very unhappy by destroying much of the exclusivity of their currenty lavish lifestyle.
You gotta be shittin me? You honestly believe the Democrats are having secret meetings figuring out new and wonderful ways to keep people poor? LMAO, you guys slay me. That's hilarious. Maybe they have a secret manifesto they hand down to the senior congressman and it's been going on behind our back 65 years? LOL.. the Great Left Wing Conspiracy. Y'all are too funny. :)

[Poster X]

Ooops, my bad. I've been shown the secret handshake. Forget I said anything. :crossx:

[rrrr]

THis is a waste of my time....but I'll play anyway...
* Refocus America on the real war on terror by making sure the U.S. continues to pursue Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice and increase levels of Special Operations forces to kill and capture the terrorists where they are and to better protect Americans at home.
The idiot Democrats still see this as a law enforcement issue, and not a war. Clinton and Albright all over again. :rolleyes:
* Provide updated tools, consistent with true American values, so we can bring terrorists to justice, while also following the law and the Constitution and work to revise the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as needed to ensure intelligence agencies have the tools needed to defeat the terrorists.
Gee, I seem to remember Harry Reid bragging about "Killing the Patriot Act". @!#)($* Clinton gutted the CIA, and his lackey Jamie Gorelick put measures in place to prevent the CIA and FBI from sharing information. :rolleyes:
* Equip the intelligence community to fight against terrorists by passing the Intelligence authorization bill, giving the CIA the resources to conduct aggressive and effective intelligence gathering. For the first time in 28 years, the Republican-controlled Congress has failed to pass the bill providing these desperately-needed resources.
Again, the Democrats have consistently voted to weaken our intelligence capbilities for the last 20 years. It's a FACT. This candy-coated bullshit is nothing but a lie....

[eliminatedsprinter]

You gotta be shittin me? You honestly believe the Democrats are having secret meetings figuring out new and wonderful ways to keep people poor? LMAO, you guys slay me. That's hilarious. Maybe they have a secret manifesto they hand down to the senior congressman and it's been going on behind our back 65 years? LOL.. the Great Left Wing Conspiracy. Y'all are too funny. :)
Of course not. What they do is push hard for social programs and tax policies that have histrically accomplished the above. Nothing has to be kept secret. They simply know that most voters have never taken Econ 101 or enough history to know what the predictable outcome of their policies will be.
There is nothing conspiratorial about it. It's just that they love to support phoney feel good ideas that often do more harm than good and the fact that they often produce the above side effects does not bother them one bit. I know, I used to be very active in Democratic campaigns and social causes, there were times when I saw this attitude first hand (that's why I quit doing it). They never said they had to do these things to keep people poor. They just said they had to push for these programs, because dispite their lack of results they were "what their people wanted". I have also seen leaders (Maxine Waters for one) leading groups of people chanting "BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY". When someone in the crowed (me) asked, if such an approach was honest and ethical, the others looked at me as if I was from Mars and went right on chanting.
Oh well, have a great weekend. :cool:

[mickeyfinn]

No secret handshakes, no clandestine meetings or anything else. They simply offer to give the poor more and more of our money. They are careful not to make it so that they are equal in income and that they continue to rely on that money. If someone offered the democrats a way to wave a magic wand and eliminate the need for welfare or other public assistance programs it would scare them so bad they would probably look for a way to eliminate that person. Face it, the Democrats have been legally buying votes since the social programs originally started. If you were to do the same thing with the money they raised for campaign expenses someone would probably go to jail, but do it with money taken from me at gunpoint in the form of taxes and it is perfectly acceptable.

[Poster X]

Y'all are pretty bitter. Did they just zone your backyard for a trailer park? Throughout history (and I mean ALL time) there have been socio-economic classes. Every single form of government has sought ways to deal with these classes in order to prevent class war. Modern democracy deals with this "classism" by using tax dollars to fund different programs that keep the lazy, the incompetent, the unable and the disabled at bay by providing them a moderate existence within our system. Without it you'd need 3 body guards and automatic weapons just to get to your car. I know you're gonna act all macho and say, "hell yea, bring it on. I'd rather kill them than support 'em." But in reality, you'd ba vastly outnumbered and it's just not the way of an enlightened and modern society to use genocide to eliminate class burdens. Isn't that your entire excuse for bombing the shit out of Iraq? You can blame the Democrats all you want but even your leadership has no better ideas for dealing with this problem of classism. The last three generations your side (The Republicans) have ruled a good 3/4 of the time. In that time, your boys; Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush and Bush Jr have done nothing to change these programs. As a matter of fact they have continued to support these programs and then go on TV and bitch about them then go and support them again. Why? Because there is no other alternative this side of genocide. It's the nature of life. Just like if your going to have mentally stable people - you're going to have mentally unstable people. The strong take care of the weak. Therefore we hospitalize and tend the unstable. You've bitched for 75 years but come up with no realistic plan. You'll bitch another 75 and still have no plan. Facts are facts.
And you wonder why we compare this administration to Nazi's? It's not because you hate Jews. Most of you probably never even met a Jew? It's because of your totalinarianistic views such as abandonment of the classes. Expansionism. Governing by fear. And worst of all, blaming everyone on the planet but yourselves. Go back and read your crap. You're at war with the world. You hate the East because you fear them. You hate Europe because you think they're pansies. You hate the mid-east because you think you're at war with them and you want their oil. You hate Canada because you think they're worthless. You hate Mexico because you blame them for the decline of your own economy. You hate South America because you think they are conspiring to drug America. You hate half of America because you think they're commie pinkos. Your autocracy is no different than Nazi Germany's. Given the chance there's little doubt you'd seize absolute power, and once that was achieved you'd have no problem with genocide against muslims, the poor, most ethnicities and anyone else you felt was inferior or a potential enemy.

[Blown 472]

No secret handshakes, no clandestine meetings or anything else. They simply offer to give the poor more and more of our money. They are careful not to make it so that they are equal in income and that they continue to rely on that money. If someone offered the democrats a way to wave a magic wand and eliminate the need for welfare or other public assistance programs it would scare them so bad they would probably look for a way to eliminate that person. Face it, the Democrats have been legally buying votes since the social programs originally started. If you were to do the same thing with the money they raised for campaign expenses someone would probably go to jail, but do it with money taken from me at gunpoint in the form of taxes and it is perfectly acceptable.
And Bush courting the wetbacks is what??

[Blown 472]

And you wonder why we compare this administration to Nazi's? It's not because you hate Jews. Most of you probably never even met a Jew? It's because of your totalinarianistic views such as abandonment of the classes. Expansionism. Governing by fear. And worst of all, blaming everyone on the planet but yourselves. Go back and read your crap. You're at war with the world. You hate the East because you fear them. You hate Europe because you think they're pansies. You hate the mid-east because you think you're at war with them and you want their oil. You hate Canada because you think they're worthless. You hate Mexico because you blame them for the decline of your own economy. You hate South America because you think they are conspiring to drug America. You hate half of America because you think they're commie pinkos. Your autocracy is no different than Nazi Germany's. Given the chance there's little doubt you'd seize absolute power, and once that was achieved you'd have no problem with genocide against muslims, the poor, most ethnicities and anyone else you felt was inferior or a potential enemy.
Ding, winner!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[centerhill condor]

Poster X... as a reply; every gov't has tried to deal with class envy ineffectively. Every time bribery or buying the disenfranchised off has been tried societal collapse results.
In most cases, in less than 100 years, the takers overload the payers until a dictatorship is required to "restore balance". All the while the standard is lowered for acceptable performance in every field; education, parenting, governance, etc.
This country was founded on the principle of self reliance. This country is one of the few where you can change your social standing by the sweet sweat of your own brow.
Yet everyday our gov't seeks to lower the standards further by subsidizing poverty, sickness, and immorality by removing negative consequences from bad behavior. So now we're much like a leg left in a cast for much too long...useless and atrophy.
And then, the rule of law is used to force our society to accept and promote the very behaviors that our founders deplored. All the while, financing corrupt lifestyles with borrowed money. How's that for totalism?
I'm all for helping feed the poor, helping house the homeless, and comforting the infirm. I have done these with my own time and money, voluntarily with gratitude.
I believe our primary difference in opinion is that I would prefer to treat the problem and you the symptom. At least you want to help, if not for any reason than, to keep from hiring three body guards.
LBJ's great society, JFK's federal funding for education, and FDR's new deal were all great ideas. Great ideas that had failed at every attempt through history. Time to realize that the ideas have once again failed miserably and we the people are far worse for them.
An immediate return to rugged individualism is the only way to save the country. But, alas, we'll never vote for it lest we miss our turn at the trough.
A country of great freedom and opportunity that was put in peril when "the vote" and the checkbook were given to non property owners.
As for comparing the Bush administration to the Nazis...that's for shock value, right? Certainly, if the President had Hitler's intent we wouldn't be having this little test of wills on a boating site, no less!

[Poster X]

Don't confuse the comparison with ideologies. I admitted the Third Reich was a totally different thing. The comparison is similar thirsts for power and similar societal blackmail to achieve it. Vis-a-vis, fear via - terrorism, the avian flu, anthrax, the border threat, muslims and so on and so on. It's obvious to any open mind this administration has levied institutional authority and left constitutional authority in the dust with such issues as wire tapping, prisoners of war, the Homeland Security Act, judicial appointees and so on and so on. Something is afoot. When y'all took a pass on the great American Bob Dole for the failed businessman and Governor who nearly bankrupted Texas, the Republican Party became something it was never intended to be. Fascist. I am a fan of every past Republican President in my lifetime sans the dual Bushs'... and voted accordingly. I still hold Nixon in high esteem and defend his presidency with a vengeance. This is NOT the Republican Party. It's identity theft.

[centerhill condor]

Illegal wiretapping? Nobody cares about it unless they have a political point to make; whatever the President does is stupid. Besides, no warrant may be required if you use a cell phone...remember you choose to broadcast your conversations to the universe. I can “tap” my neighbor’s conversations at will with a little help from radio shack.
I have no doubt that computers buried in nuke proof bunkers have been randomly searching your phone calls for key words for decades...likely while BC was protesting in the USSR. Every time he called home someone in VA was listening.
To say the President has over powered the presidency is debatable. Neither the war powers resolution, Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, nor the Boland amendments have been aggressively challenged in court. So, depending on who is sitting on what bench these "acts" as passed by an imperialistic Congress could be wasted paper.
Andrew Jackson would certainly not have let his hands be tied by a bunch of lawyers overzealous for the rights of those who would destroy our blessed constitution. Abe Lincoln would have had these lawyers hanged for sedition.
Hitler did centralize authority under the guise of fighting terror. However, Hitler's "friends" burnt their hall of Congress at his direction.
So, the President is either a complete moron or an evil heir to dictatorship via a world class terror blitz? Or is it something else entirely? Maybe you haven't seen leadership perform under pressure in quite a while so it scares you a bit?
Shortly after 9/11, I met a woman working for our congress. She was doing some research regarding the possibility of terror attacks, etc in Nashville's big buildings. Somehow, during the conversation, she said we need this delay in action to allow the legislative process to work. That's the kind of arrogance of power that beat the japs, nazis, and rome! They call it "victory disease". Because we've always won we think we always will.
We can debate the legislation after we've neutralized the enemy with extreme prejudice. We had great hearings and investigations after WWII was complete. In order to be the victor you must first win!
I see the President for what he is...an above average guy doing his best to keep the country above water with a Dixie cup while many of "ya'll" piss in the boat.
Your next president will likely gain favor by promising to keep/get you out of a foreign/religious war…sound familiar?

[Poster X]

I'm sure you don't know you're spouting party Dogma. I'm sure you don't know the House Intelligence Committee issued a report, according to its chairman, Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, "to help increase the American public's understanding of Iran as a threat." Claiming to be authoritative, the frightening report, however, bore the earmarks of a partisan political operation. A single Republican staff member (Frederick Fleitz, a former aide to John Bolton, now the hard-right ambassador to the United Nations) wrote the document without any input from or consultation with the Democrats. It painted a dire picture and blamed the usual suspects for complacency and worse: the CIA for inadequately assessing the threat and the International Atomic Energy Agency for complicity in "Iranian deception."
The German citizens who elected Hitler by popular vote didn't know they were the bad guys. They thought they were good guys. It was far too late into the administration before they realized they might not be the good guys anymore.
Kudos to Sydney Blumenthal whom I plagiarized shamelessly in the above statement.

[IMPATIENT 1]

[QUOTE=centerhill condor]only in OK! I'm behind ya man...way behind you! The people don't want an honest man in the white house. They want someone they can buy for cash or credit! You'd be run out in the first primary as "too honest"!
lol, we've all done things as kids we regret. its when you become a man that you can look back and say "wtf was i thinking?", and if someone asks about those mistakes, you can say "yep, i was a dumbass huh", most americans understand that. i think there's someone out there like that, but like previously stated, an honest man wouldn't get very far in politics, which saddens the hell outta me. when did americans get so p.c. that they want everything bad handed to them suger coated in lies?

['75 Miller]

Don't confuse the comparison with ideologies. I admitted the Third Reich was a totally different thing. The comparison is similar thirsts for power and similar societal blackmail to achieve it. Vis-a-vis, fear via - terrorism, the avian flu, anthrax, the border threat, muslims and so on and so on. It's obvious to any open mind this administration has levied institutional authority and left constitutional authority in the dust with such issues as wire tapping, prisoners of war, the Homeland Security Act, judicial appointees and so on and so on. Something is afoot. When y'all took a pass on the great American Bob Dole for the failed businessman and Governor who nearly bankrupted Texas, the Republican Party became something it was never intended to be. Fascist. I am a fan of every past Republican President in my lifetime sans the dual Bushs'... and voted accordingly. I still hold Nixon in high esteem and defend his presidency with a vengeance. This is NOT the Republican Party. It's identity theft.
Do fascist regimes historically PEACEFULLY transfer power to their opposition after losing an election? Are you one of the loons that thinks martial law will be declared & the 2008 Presidential Election will be cancelled? Fascist..ridiculous.

[Poster X]

It would probably take a scenario comparable to WWII for you to get it? I expect a peaceful transition based purely on misinformation and and misplaced patriotism. If you lose the next Presidential campaign you'll just be back in 4 years with the same party duplicity and will continue to do so until it works. Every aspect of an autocracy's rise to power doesn't have to be the same. The end result once that power is achieved... is what IS the same. Unless something is spelled out in public admittance or trial, the neocon powerbase will never see it. So, I'm not surprised you neither see it coming, or believe the possiblity even exists.

[Blown 472]

It would probably take a scenario comparable to WWII for you to get it? I expect a peaceful transition based purely on misinformation and and misplaced patriotism. If you lose the next Presidential campaign you'll just be back in 4 years with the same party duplicity and will continue to do so until it works. Every aspect of an autocracy's rise to power doesn't have to be the same. The end result once that power is achieved... is what IS the same. Unless something is spelled out in public admittance or trial, the neocon powerbase will never see it. So, I'm not surprised you neither see it coming, or believe the possiblity even exists.
That would require them to think outside the box.

['75 Miller]

That would require them to think outside the box.
Right.You two are brilliant. You guys see all, whereas the 85% of folks on here (you know the ones always shooting your ideas down) are just not smart enough to be aware of the fascist conspiracy. Got arrogance?
What about the left? You know, the neosocialists...is there a conspiracy there too?

[Poster X]

You caught us. We were conspiring to regress into Constitutional government based on a multi party system supported by an interested and legal populace. Pretty far out huh?

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Where do you figure to get a LEGAL populace while giving voting rights to illegal aliens and convicted felons as the democrats have been trying to do for years now?

['75 Miller]

You caught us. We were conspiring to regress into Constitutional government based on a multi party system supported by an interested and legal populace. Pretty far out huh?
What exactly has the Bush administration done that was unconstitutional? Who's rights were infringed and how? Since when was this not a multi-party system?
A legal populace...that's a good one.

[Poster X]

What exactly has the Bush administration done that was unconstitutional? Who's rights were infringed and how? Since when was this not a multi-party system?
A legal populace...that's a good one.
I guess you never heard of the Patriot Act? I reckon you haven't noticed the line drawn in the sand between the two parties? Or the war on the middle class? I'm not going to do 6 years of research for you. Just vote a Republican ticket whenever anything comes up. You're unteachable anyway.

['75 Miller]

I guess you never heard of the Patriot Act? I reckon you haven't noticed the line drawn in the sand between the two parties? Or the war on the middle class? I'm not going to do 6 years of research for you. Just vote a Republican ticket whenever anything comes up. You're unteachable anyway.
Why did so many demorats vote for the patriot act if it's so clearly unconstitutional? Did they not read it first?
What part of the patriot act has you so pissed? Scared the federales are gonna see what books you check out?
I'm pretty middle-class and I appreciate very much the Bush tax cuts. I don't feel assaulted at all by having the pay the gov't less money.
If unteachable means that I can't be indoctrinated by your Bush hatred syndrome bs then yeah, you got me.

[Poster X]

Nobody read the Patriot Act. I mean NOBODY. Everyone in Congress should lose their seat. Also, the Democrats were terrified to go against anything immediately after 9/11 for fear of being perceived as anti American. Patritoism was at a fever pitch and the mob mentality of the populace was teetering on near riot. Wrong as it may be..they just went along with everything. It's not what the Patriot Act means today that has me scared. it's how it's interpreted tomorrow. Much like how you're trying to bend the Constitution to allow party demagoguery.

[centerhill condor]

what's a party without demogogary?!
without the patriot act the war on terror has become a financial boom for legal counsel. I read where a brief was filed to prevent a life saving surgery on an enemy combatant in Cuba 'cause the medical staff isn't all that hot...we call this pre-emptive ambulance chasing.
Terror is, by the Geneva convention's, definition illegal. So, how we then afford a bunch of terrorists the same rights as uniformed enemy soldiers escapes my laymen's understanding of "rule of law".
During the occupation of Germany, we shot on sight and hanged by the neck until dead without a jury trial...that is what military officers do during wartime. Today, we have this relatively recent mealy mouthed policy of "slow motion review of play" in an effort to provide fairness.
We can rule by justice after we win with violence. That's mankind's way and we should read history before we try to rewrite it with "finesse" and "compassion".
We'll get serious about this after another significant terror attack. Can we then file under federal jurisdiction for civil rights violation...does mass murder qualify?

[Poster X]

Once a prisoner is in Guantanomo perception becomes pretty simple. We're blowing them to pieces in the field just like y'all love. We're blowing up women, children, old people and villages just like you dream about. We're invading without an act of war by the enemy. You war mongers gotta love that? Your President uses the Constitution for toilet paper. Why do you need a Patriot Act?

[centerhill condor]

to keep you from seeing the real plan...

[SmokinLowriderSS]

I guess you never heard of the Patriot Act? I reckon you haven't noticed the line drawn in the sand between the two parties? Or the war on the middle class? I'm not going to do 6 years of research for you. Just vote a Republican ticket whenever anything comes up. You're unteachable anyway.
So poser, just what about it do you see as unconstitutional?
Just whose rights were infringed upon?
What rights of yours have you lost due to the evil Patriot Act?

[Poster X]

If they choose to impose it, about every inalienable right is threatened by the Patriot Act. You're just hoping they won't or your entire argument is they haven't yet. Experience dictates if you give the government power, they will use it. You're living your life by the day and apparently making your political decisions the same way. I try to think ahead if only a little bit. There will be a day when the threat that created this "Act" is over. What then? The open doors for abuse are plentiful and threaten the very Constitution itself.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

If they choose to impose it, about every inalienable right is threatened by the Patriot Act. You're just hoping they won't or your entire argument is they haven't yet. Experience dictates if you give the government power, they will use it. You're living your life by the day and apparently making your political decisions the same way. I try to think ahead if only a little bit. There will be a day when the threat that created this "Act" is over. What then? The open doors for abuse are plentiful and threaten the very Constitution itself.
Translation:
Everything
No-ones
None

['75 Miller]

Once a prisoner is in Guantanomo perception becomes pretty simple. We're blowing them to pieces in the field just like y'all love. We're blowing up women, children, old people and villages just like you dream about. We're invading without an act of war by the enemy. You war mongers gotta love that? Your President uses the Constitution for toilet paper. Why do you need a Patriot Act?
Sir you're outta line. No one loves blowing up women, children or old folks more than the enemy we're engaged with. Yet somehow all you can see is the few mistakes that happen in all wars. Just because time has passed doesn't mean you can rewrite history. Saddam bears responsibility for this war, yet you seem only to blame your own country.

[Blown 472]

Sir you're outta line. No one loves blowing up women, children or old folks more than the enemy we're engaged with. Yet somehow all you can see is the few mistakes that happen in all wars. Just because time has passed doesn't mean you can rewrite history. Saddam bears responsibility for this war, yet you seem only to blame your own country.
He does? what did he do? did he attack the us?

['75 Miller]

He does? what did he do? did he attack the us?
Failure to comply with terms of the CEASEFIRE clown. He regularly fired LIVE ammo at our pilots enforcing no-fly zones.
Why do you want us to wait 'til after an attack?

[Poster X]

A few mistakes? Have you bothered to check the civilian death toll in Iraq and Afghanistan? But, let's not go there. We'd then denegrate to somehow blaming the soldiers and I don't blame them in the least bit. I'll even give you Afghanistan. They did rent space to terrorists. But Iraq, sorry dude. But all the posturing and finger pointing and he said she saids in the world do not justify that war. it's been argued a zillion times on this and many boards. The facts remain the same. Saddam was an ass but didn't do anything to incite this total abborration on mankind in the Middle East. Had you bombed the Gaza Strip, Sudan or even Somalia you'd still have support. But you didn't. You took innocent patriotism and and used it for personal gain and party reasons. That my friend, is traiterous. I know your boy ain't in jail. I know he ain't even up on charges. Neither is OJ. Doesn't make him innocent either. One day (mark my words) it WILL come up and words like war criminal and traitor will be used.

[Blown 472]

Failure to comply with terms of the CEASEFIRE clown. He regularly fired LIVE ammo at our pilots enforcing no-fly zones.
Why do you want us to wait 'til after an attack?
Then why didn't we attack israel for killing some saliors?
Did he ever threaten us? oh yeah I forgot the mushroom cloud thingy from your hero condi, ok never mind thousands of dead folks for what?

[Blown 472]

A few mistakes? Have you bothered to check the civilian death toll in Iraq and Afghanistan? But, let's not go there. We'd then denegrate to somehow blaming the soldiers and I don't blame them in the least bit. I'll even give you Afghanistan. They did rent space to terrorists. But Iraq, sorry dude. But all the posturing and finger pointing and he said she saids in the world do not justify that war. it's been argued a zillion times on this and many boards. The facts remain the same. Saddam was an ass but didn't do anything to incite this total abborration on mankind in the Middle East. Had you bombed the Gaza Strip, Sudan or even Somalia you'd still have support. But you didn't. You took innocent patriotism and and used it for personal gain and party reasons. That my friend, is traiterous. I know your boy ain't in jail. I know he ain't even up on charges. Neither is OJ. Doesn't make him innocent either. One day (mark my words) it WILL come up and words like war criminal and traitor will be used.
And Mr. bush will get an up close and personal view of The Hauge.

['75 Miller]

Then why didn't we attack israel for killing some saliors?
Did he ever threaten us? oh yeah I forgot the mushroom cloud thingy from your hero condi, ok never mind thousands of dead folks for what?
I actually agree with you in a way, with regard to the attack on that American ship. They are our friends, yes, but I still would've given 'em a bloody nose over it. It was intentional and they should have been made to pay. I think the president at the time was LBJ, by far the biggest piece of shit this fine country had to suffer through. No balls there.
It's awful easy to be so certain now isn't it. Hindsight is wonderful. In the future I hope we again have the kind of LEADER who will weigh the evidence and lead based on that evidence. Pre-emptively whenever possible.

['75 Miller]

And Mr. bush will get an up close and personal view of The Hauge.
Either you're joking or you've completely lost touch with reality. President Bush will never see the hague, unless it's part of his official duties, of course. Or perhaps as a tourist. Why would you want that? Regardless of party I'd never want to see any American official tried in anything other that an American court under American law. I don't give a shit what they're alleged to have done. To me that just seems like relinquishing our sovereignty for nothing. Who are you trying to please and why?

[Poster X]

I think he meant it metaphorically.

[centerhill condor]

next time you're reading the Constitution of the United States..underline the part that gives our gov't the authority to decide what I put in my body, the articles that say I have to pay for the poor to procreate, and the old to be poor. You've fallen into the trap of everything for nothing and it is a trap from which there is no escape.
If you're soooo concerned about a return to Constituional form of government this group may interest you...or maybe not..jbs.org (http://www.jbs.org)

[Blown 472]

I actually agree with you in a way, with regard to the attack on that American ship. They are our friends, yes, but I still would've given 'em a bloody nose over it. It was intentional and they should have been made to pay. I think the president at the time was LBJ, by far the biggest piece of shit this fine country had to suffer through. No balls there.
It's awful easy to be so certain now isn't it. Hindsight is wonderful. In the future I hope we again have the kind of LEADER who will weigh the evidence and lead based on that evidence. Pre-emptively whenever possible.
Well look at that a common ground, cool.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

He does? what did he do? did he attack the us?
Re-read post 63 blown .......
17 UN resolutions about NOT FOLLOWING THE RULES OF THE CEASE-FIRE of 1992 blown.
Hell, we didn't start a new war, we just quit 1-siding the CEASE-FIRE.
Good god blown, I've 'splained this to you how many times already??????

[Poster X]

Israel ignored over forty UN resolutions. We bombing them too? Or is this more a pick as we go thing?

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Then why didn't we attack israel for killing some saliors?Did he ever threaten us? oh yeah I forgot the mushroom cloud thingy from your hero condi, ok never mind thousands of dead folks for what?
blown, you and 4 other idiots in the world (2 of which were on the boat) think Israel did it ON PURPOSE, despite every single piece of evidence to the contrary.
WHY blown?
Yes blown, Saddam was a threat, by giving money to, training to, and providing safe haven to, the terrorists who were being a DIRECT THREATTO THE US.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

I actually agree with you in a way, with regard to the attack on that American ship. They are our friends, yes, but I still would've given 'em a bloody nose over it. It was intentional and they should have been made to pay. I think the president at the time was LBJ, by far the biggest piece of shit this fine country had to suffer through. No balls there.
It's awful easy to be so certain now isn't it. Hindsight is wonderful. In the future I hope we again have the kind of LEADER who will weigh the evidence and lead based on that evidence. Pre-emptively whenever possible.
Miller, the attack was intentional only in so far as they THOUGHT it was an Egyptian ship, not a US one. They did in no way intentionally attack a US ship, they thought they were intentionally attacking an Egyptian ship. The evidence proves this out, and has proven this out for decades now, except to blown, since the jews did it.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Israel ignored over forty UN resolutions. We bombing them too? Or is this more a pick as we go thing?
Care to quote me the resolutions against Israel regarding a cease-fire agreement we were party to?
g-head, I dare ya.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

And Mr. bush will get an up close and personal view of The Hauge.
List for us the crimes blown........ IF you can.

[Poster X]

So UN resolutions only count if it's a country we don't like?

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Care to quote me the resolutions against Israel regarding a cease-fire agreement we were party to?
g-head, I dare ya.
AHEM poser ......

[Blown 472]

AHEM poser ......
Since texan axed me why I hates them jews so much, perhaps you could tell me why you loves em so much? what do they do fer ya? what return on yer tax dollars do ya get from dem?

['75 Miller]

Since texan axed me why I hates them jews so much, perhaps you could tell me why you loves em so much? what do they do fer ya? what return on yer tax dollars do ya get from dem?
I'm sure that most of the guys in here with whom you argue would answer just about any question you may have about their position. You know, what their position is, how they arrived at that position, etc. But you always seem to answer questions with questions, never elaborating beyond your initial rant. Why?
And who DO you hate the Jews/Israel/zionists so much?

[Blown 472]

I'm sure that most of the guys in here with whom you argue would answer just about any question you may have about their position. You know, what their position is, how they arrived at that position, etc. But you always seem to answer questions with questions, never elaborating beyond your initial rant. Why?
And who DO you hate the Jews/Israel/zionists so much?
Ah dude like check the chicken little thread.

[Poster X]

So UN resolutions only count if it's a country we don't like?
I don't care what UN resolutions they didn't follow. You've let Israel ignore resolutions for fifty years and now they count all of a sudden? I call bullshit.

[Blown 472]

I don't care what UN resolutions they didn't follow. You've let Israel ignore resolutions for fifty years and now they count all of a sudden? I call bullshit.
Well they count when they work in your favor. Me thinks it is a double standard or something.

['75 Miller]

Ah dude like check the chicken little thread.
Sorry dude there's no answer in there that explains why you hate zionists.

[Blown 472]

Sorry dude there's no answer in there that explains why you hate zionists.
hummmmmm guess you are right, well then why do you love em so much?

['75 Miller]

hummmmmm guess you are right, well then why do you love em so much?
Don't really love or hate 'em. I'm interested in MY family, MY country. Not really trying to get all worked up trying to tell our friends how to run their shit.

[Blown 472]

Don't really love or hate 'em. I'm interested in MY family, MY country. Not really trying to get all worked up trying to tell our friends how to run their shit.
Why are they our friends?

['75 Miller]

Why are they our friends?
Pardon me. I'm not trying to tell America's ('cept Blown) friends how to run their shit.

[eliminatedsprinter]

Since texan axed me why I hates them jews so much, perhaps you could tell me why you loves em so much? what do they do fer ya? what return on yer tax dollars do ya get from dem?
If you had the slightest clue re world history, you would know that for such a small group of people their positive contributions to civilized society has been and continues to be enormous.

[eliminatedsprinter]

Why are they our friends?
Because they are the only decent, democratic, and civilized nation in a very important region of the world. Sure they have done some tough things, that the U.N. does not like. But they are surrounded by Nazi like nations of people who would gleefully kill them all if givin a chance. The U.S. and it's allies had to do a lot of worse things during WWII to survive and Isreal feels (with good cause) that they are in the same type of situation.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

So UN resolutions only count if it's a country we don't like?
I don't care what UN resolutions they didn't follow. You've let Israel ignore resolutions for fifty years and now they count all of a sudden? I call bullshit.
You bring up UN resolutions and I refuse to let you compare an apple to an orange. THERE's your BS, and your very own backpedal.
There was UN authorization to resume hostilities with the govt of Iraq poser, bottom line, whether you like it or not. No such case has ever existed with Israel, much to you and blown's chagrin.

[Poster X]

So only a particular resolution counts?

[Blown 472]

If you had the slightest clue re world history, you would know that for such a small group of people their positive contributions to civilized society has been and continues to be enormous.
list them

[Blown 472]

Because they are the only decent, democratic, and civilized nation in a very important region of the world. Sure they have done some tough things, that the U.N. does not like. But they are surrounded by Nazi like nations of people who would gleefully kill them all if givin a chance. The U.S. and it's allies had to do a lot of worse things during WWII to survive and Isreal feels (with good cause) that they are in the same type of situation.
like this??
The Massacre at Beit Hanoun
By KATHLEEN CHRISTISON
Ha'aretz correspondent Gideon Levy described the situation in the northern Gaza town of Beit Hanoun in a searing article on Sunday. He proposed, half seriously, that the Israeli colonies removed last year as part of Israel's so-called "disengagement" from Gaza should be returned because they would serve "as the last human shield for a million and a half residents who now comprise one of the most helpless populations in the world. Incarcerated, without any assistance, they are liable to starve to death. Exposed, without any protection, they fall prey to the Israel Defense Force's operations of vengeance."
How can we Americans ignore this? How can we bear it? How can we bear to continue paying for Israel's atrocities? How can we possibly allow this inhumanity to be perpetrated in our name without crying out in horror, without bringing down our own government that sits by doling out the money and the weapons to keep this horror going, without severing altogether any ties with Israel's Nazi government?
"Burying its 350 dead since the summer," Levy goes on,
"Gaza threatens to become Chechnya. There are thousands of wounded, disabled and shell-shocked people in Gaza, unable to receive any treatment. Those on respirators are liable to die due to the frequent power outages since Israel bombed the power plant. Tens of thousands of children suffer from existential anxiety, while their parents are unable to provide help. They are witnesses to sights that even Gaza's old-timers have never seen before."
The horrors are unspeakable; I'm not making this up. Nor is Levy.
"Anyone who does not believe this can travel to Beit Hanoun, an hour from Tel Aviv. The trauma is only intensifying there, in a town that lost nearly 80 of its sons and daughters within a week [in early November]. The shadows of human beings roam the ruins. Last week, I met people there who are terrified, depressed, injured, humiliated, bereaved and bewildered. What can one say to them? That they should stop firing Qassams? But the vast majority of them are not involved in this at all. That they should return Gilad Shalit? What do they have to do with him? They only know the IDF will return and they know what this will mean for them: more imprisonment in their homes for weeks, more death and destruction in monstrous proportions, without them being guilty of a thing. In Israel's dark southern backyard, a large-scale humanitarian tragedy is unfolding. Israel and the world, including the Arab states, are covering their eyes and the last resort, as absurd as it sounds, might be to long for the settlements. The situation is that desperate."
How can we possibly allow this to go on, blithely ignoring it, blithely affirming Israel's "right to defend itself," ignoring the absence of any actual threat to Israel, blithely assuming that it is right and proper to murder, starve, imprison, deny medical treatment, deny water to an entire people simply because they are not Jews and are resisting Israel's domination?
"Brutal and dizzy ideas compete against each other," Levy continues, "the defense minister suggests liquidations and the agriculture minister proposes tougher action; one advocates 'an eye for an eye,' the second wants to 'erase Beit Hanoun' and the third 'to pulverize Beit Lahiya.' And no one pauses for a moment to think about what they are saying. What exactly does it mean to 'erase Beit Hanoun'? What does this chilling combination of words mean? A town of 30,000 people, most of them children, whose measure of grief and suffering has long reached breaking point, unemployed and hungry, without a present and without a future, with no protection against Israel's violent military responses, which have lost all human proportionality.
"Proportionality is also needed when examining the extent of suffering in the neighboring town, Sderot [the Israeli town frequently hit by Palestinian Qassam rockets]. It should be stated honestly: Sderot's suffering, as heart-rending and difficult as it is, amounts to nothing when compared to the suffering of its neighbor. Sderot is now mourning one fatality, while Beit Hanoun is mourning nearly 80 dead. . . . Did the futile killing of the people in Beit Hanoun contribute anything to the security of Sderot's residents? The events of the past days clearly demonstrate that the answer is no. . . .
"Soon Gaza will look like Darfur, but while the world is giving some sort of assistance to Darfur, it still dares to play tough with Gaza. Instead of boycotting the one who is abusing the residents of Gaza, the world is boycotting the victim, blocking assistance that it so desperately needs. Tens of thousands of workers who are not receiving their meager wages because of the boycott are the world's gift to Gaza, while Israel is not only killing them, but also stealing their money, locking them in from all sides and not allowing them any chance to extricate themselves."
How can we allow this to go on? C-SPAN is asking this week for one-minute video-taped statements, which it will begin airing on Thanksgiving, answering the question "what does being an American mean to you?" I have no video camera and no intention of submitting a tape, but the invitation got me thinking. Does being an American mean that I must sit back and quietly allow my government to starve the entire Palestinian people, in the name of some kind of dedication to a flag and a bill of rights that applies only to white people? Does it mean that I must approve, or even merely accept, the subhuman behavior of my government's closest ally, Israel?
Or does being an American mean that I must do something -- at least speak out, scream out -- to stop the bleeding inflicted on innocents by America and Israel? And does not being an American mean that I must challenge my fellow Americans to speak out as well? Here is the challenge: any Jew anywhere who allows Israel to commit these acts and pursue these policies in the name of all Jews -- for Israel does claim to act in the name of Jews everywhere -- without speaking out against Israel, without screaming protests, must be ashamed. Any American who allows the United States to support Israel -- to support it militarily with infusions of arms in the billions of dollars every year and to sustain it morally and psychologically -- without loud protest should be ashamed. The time has come to stand up and be counted as Americans truly interested in justice and human rights and humanity.
Can we not match Gideon Levy's courage in speaking the truth? Palestine is the conscience of us all.
Kathleen Christison is a former CIA political analyst and has worked on Middle East issues for 30 years. She is the author of Perceptions of Palestine and The Wound of Dispossession.

['75 Miller]

like this??
The Massacre at Beit Hanoun
By KATHLEEN CHRISTISON
Ha'aretz correspondent Gideon Levy described the situation in the northern Gaza town of Beit Hanoun in a searing article on Sunday. He proposed, half seriously, that the Israeli colonies removed last year as part of Israel's so-called "disengagement" from Gaza should be returned because they would serve "as the last human shield for a million and a half residents who now comprise one of the most helpless populations in the world. Incarcerated, without any assistance, they are liable to starve to death. Exposed, without any protection, they fall prey to the Israel Defense Force's operations of vengeance."
How can we Americans ignore this? How can we bear it? How can we bear to continue paying for Israel's atrocities? How can we possibly allow this inhumanity to be perpetrated in our name without crying out in horror, without bringing down our own government that sits by doling out the money and the weapons to keep this horror going, without severing altogether any ties with Israel's Nazi government?
"Burying its 350 dead since the summer," Levy goes on,
"Gaza threatens to become Chechnya. There are thousands of wounded, disabled and shell-shocked people in Gaza, unable to receive any treatment. Those on respirators are liable to die due to the frequent power outages since Israel bombed the power plant. Tens of thousands of children suffer from existential anxiety, while their parents are unable to provide help. They are witnesses to sights that even Gaza's old-timers have never seen before."
The horrors are unspeakable; I'm not making this up. Nor is Levy.
"Anyone who does not believe this can travel to Beit Hanoun, an hour from Tel Aviv. The trauma is only intensifying there, in a town that lost nearly 80 of its sons and daughters within a week [in early November]. The shadows of human beings roam the ruins. Last week, I met people there who are terrified, depressed, injured, humiliated, bereaved and bewildered. What can one say to them? That they should stop firing Qassams? But the vast majority of them are not involved in this at all. That they should return Gilad Shalit? What do they have to do with him? They only know the IDF will return and they know what this will mean for them: more imprisonment in their homes for weeks, more death and destruction in monstrous proportions, without them being guilty of a thing. In Israel's dark southern backyard, a large-scale humanitarian tragedy is unfolding. Israel and the world, including the Arab states, are covering their eyes and the last resort, as absurd as it sounds, might be to long for the settlements. The situation is that desperate."
How can we possibly allow this to go on, blithely ignoring it, blithely affirming Israel's "right to defend itself," ignoring the absence of any actual threat to Israel, blithely assuming that it is right and proper to murder, starve, imprison, deny medical treatment, deny water to an entire people simply because they are not Jews and are resisting Israel's domination?
"Brutal and dizzy ideas compete against each other," Levy continues, "the defense minister suggests liquidations and the agriculture minister proposes tougher action; one advocates 'an eye for an eye,' the second wants to 'erase Beit Hanoun' and the third 'to pulverize Beit Lahiya.' And no one pauses for a moment to think about what they are saying. What exactly does it mean to 'erase Beit Hanoun'? What does this chilling combination of words mean? A town of 30,000 people, most of them children, whose measure of grief and suffering has long reached breaking point, unemployed and hungry, without a present and without a future, with no protection against Israel's violent military responses, which have lost all human proportionality.
"Proportionality is also needed when examining the extent of suffering in the neighboring town, Sderot [the Israeli town frequently hit by Palestinian Qassam rockets]. It should be stated honestly: Sderot's suffering, as heart-rending and difficult as it is, amounts to nothing when compared to the suffering of its neighbor. Sderot is now mourning one fatality, while Beit Hanoun is mourning nearly 80 dead. . . . Did the futile killing of the people in Beit Hanoun contribute anything to the security of Sderot's residents? The events of the past days clearly demonstrate that the answer is no. . . .
"Soon Gaza will look like Darfur, but while the world is giving some sort of assistance to Darfur, it still dares to play tough with Gaza. Instead of boycotting the one who is abusing the residents of Gaza, the world is boycotting the victim, blocking assistance that it so desperately needs. Tens of thousands of workers who are not receiving their meager wages because of the boycott are the world's gift to Gaza, while Israel is not only killing them, but also stealing their money, locking them in from all sides and not allowing them any chance to extricate themselves."
How can we allow this to go on? C-SPAN is asking this week for one-minute video-taped statements, which it will begin airing on Thanksgiving, answering the question "what does being an American mean to you?" I have no video camera and no intention of submitting a tape, but the invitation got me thinking. Does being an American mean that I must sit back and quietly allow my government to starve the entire Palestinian people, in the name of some kind of dedication to a flag and a bill of rights that applies only to white people? Does it mean that I must approve, or even merely accept, the subhuman behavior of my government's closest ally, Israel?
Or does being an American mean that I must do something -- at least speak out, scream out -- to stop the bleeding inflicted on innocents by America and Israel? And does not being an American mean that I must challenge my fellow Americans to speak out as well? Here is the challenge: any Jew anywhere who allows Israel to commit these acts and pursue these policies in the name of all Jews -- for Israel does claim to act in the name of Jews everywhere -- without speaking out against Israel, without screaming protests, must be ashamed. Any American who allows the United States to support Israel -- to support it militarily with infusions of arms in the billions of dollars every year and to sustain it morally and psychologically -- without loud protest should be ashamed. The time has come to stand up and be counted as Americans truly interested in justice and human rights and humanity.
Can we not match Gideon Levy's courage in speaking the truth? Palestine is the conscience of us all.
Kathleen Christison is a former CIA political analyst and has worked on Middle East issues for 30 years. She is the author of Perceptions of Palestine and The Wound of Dispossession.
Wow what a thinker! I'm wiping away tears as I type.
As an American I am ashamed... of bleeding heart lefty fags that think this way. When, Mr. Goebbels, did The Honorable Nation of Israel attack these swine without provocation? You're "informed" right? So when they have no choice but to act they go in swingin' a big stick. So what. I admire and respect them for that.

[Blown 472]

Wow what a thinker! I'm wiping away tears as I type.
As an American I am ashamed... of bleeding heart lefty fags that think this way. When, Mr. Goebbels, did The Honorable Nation of Israel attack these swine without provocation? You're "informed" right? So when they have no choice but to act they go in swingin' a big stick. So what. I admire and respect them for that.
Well then, perhaps you could list the reasons you swing from their nuts?

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Well then, perhaps you could list the reasons you swing from their nuts?
I've seen fag transvestites say the same thing................... Hmmmmmmmmmm.

['75 Miller]

Well then, perhaps you could list the reasons you swing from their nuts?
!st off, pillow-biter, I swing from no one's nuts. Sure seems like you're dangling from the nuts of traitors & propagandists.
I truly have no love or hate for Israel. I realize, however much it chaps your ass, that they are our friends and allies since they're the only island of democracy in a sea of worthless dicktasterships.
I do, however, have a ton of respect for the way they dispatch their enemies. Thought it was great the way they dismissed that old palestinian leader, can't remember his name (who cares). You know, the old cocksucker in a wheelchair, the one that they shot in the chest with a rocket. Damn I hope that was an American rocket. What was his name Clown? I appreciate TARGETED assasination.

[Blown 472]

!st off, pillow-biter, I swing from no one's nuts. Sure seems like you're dangling from the nuts of traitors & propagandists.
I truly have no love or hate for Israel. I realize, however much it chaps your ass, that they are our friends and allies since they're the only island of democracy in a sea of worthless dicktasterships.
I do, however, have a ton of respect for the way they dispatch their enemies. Thought it was great the way they dismissed that old palestinian leader, can't remember his name (who cares). You know, the old cocksucker in a wheelchair, the one that they shot in the chest with a rocket. Damn I hope that was an American rocket. What was his name Clown? I appreciate TARGETED assasination.
So tell me what do we get from our tax dollars that we send over there every year?
Dispatch, like in their latest lil deal? they ran home with their tails between their legs.
You dont care about anything over there but yet you are all in favor of this "
island of democracy" why is that? How come we dont attack china, or saudi? they are not democracies??

['75 Miller]

So tell me what do we get from our tax dollars that we send over there every year?
Dispatch, like in their latest lil deal? they ran home with their tails between their legs.
You dont care about anything over there but yet you are all in favor of this "
island of democracy" why is that? How come we dont attack china, or saudi? they are not democracies??
Get that thing sleeved yet?

[SmokinLowriderSS]

So tell me what do we get from our tax dollars that we send over there every year?
Dispatch, like in their latest lil deal? they ran home with their tails between their legs.
You dont care about anything over there but yet you are all in favor of this "
island of democracy" why is that? How come we dont attack china, or saudi? they are not democracies??
So why do you hang so tenaciously (means "real tight" blown) to the palistinean's sack blown?
Just want to keep it in a vernacular you understand, like "nut-swinging" and all. If anyone dispenses with fag inuendo and asks a hard question, you seem to vanish like a tranny at Mardi Gras.

[eliminatedsprinter]

list them
The list of the contributions of Jewish people to civilized society is far too long to put here in a quick 5 min post. So I will just give the one example that should intrest you. It was a Jew that is credited with inventing modern psychiatry. :wink:

[Blown 472]

So why do you hang so tenaciously (means "real tight" blown) to the palistinean's sack blown?
Just want to keep it in a vernacular you understand, like "nut-swinging" and all. If anyone dispenses with fag inuendo and asks a hard question, you seem to vanish like a tranny at Mardi Gras.
HOlY five dollar words bat man. I think I have answered your questions :rolleyes:

[Poster X]

I thought trannies liked Mardi Gras? A lot!