Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » :/ What a dumbass.
|
|
| :/ What a dumbass. [message #71232] |
Fri, 12 March 2004 12:09   |
 |
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
Just to clarify, I'm not blaming the president for 9/11, nor saying it could have in any way been expected. As well, I'm not using past events to say "this is how it should have gone". Point in context, the Oliver North testimony. I know this is stating it as hindsight, but something should have been done then, rather than sitting and waiting for what seemed to be the inevitable to happen. The form of attack may not have been preventable, but an attack itself may have been.
Is Bush to blame for this? Not solely. Everyone involved from that testimony (if not up to the initial funding of Osama) on should recieve some blame. It's sort of the "I told you so" argument on a larger scale.
American leaders were warned something like this might happen, yet -as it didn't affect them at that point in time- nothing was done. The same thing happened in World War one, AND two. America did nothing until they were directly threatened, in WWII that time was almost too late.
Am I suggesting that Countries go out of their way to stop the terrorists of another country? No. Am I suggesting that more could of been done to prevent an attack that had been cautioned about? Yes. In relation to the initial arguement, if you know something is going to happen, act on it rather than waiting for it to happen. I'm not suggesting this was the motive behind waiting, but it's an observation based on peoples reaction. Bush seems to become an American hero because of the new agressive anti-terrorist stance, yet refused to act on it when he had the Oliver North testimony cautioning that Osama was a threat. I don't know about you, but if I knew that someone was a threat, yet how, when, why, if, etc. was unknown, I'd go to them to stop it before it they came to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| :/ What a dumbass. [message #71291] |
Fri, 12 March 2004 19:12 |
 |
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Crimson |
And that's worse than the Democrats finding a couple 9/11 widows to read talking cards about Bush using 9/11 imagery in his ads? I think not.
|
When did that ever happen?
| Crimson |
So 18 felony counts and up to 3 years in prison for some of the principles... and it wasn't a scandal? Just because they weren't able to pin anything on "Teflon" Clinton, doesn't mean it wasn't a scandal.
|
14 felony counts. Remember that this whole investigation started as Republicans believing Clinton was guilty and then tried to prove it. So Republicans are circulating all these stupid rumors about a huge Clinton scandal in which the Clintons actually LOST 50,000 dollars, and so Clinton calls for an independent investigation. Even after the independent head of this investigation is changed to Kenneth Starr, a radical Clinton hater, they still can't find anything on Clinton. The biggest American political investigion ever exonerated Clinton. In essence, it was a 40 million dollar Republican campaign ad. Want a real scandal?
Haliburton.
| Crimson |
INVENTING something and championing the funding for something are QUITE different things! If I invent a robot that cleans your house, and some rich guy gives me $10 million to improve it and market it and produce it, that doesn't mean the rich dude can claim he invented it. It's really two completely different things, inventing and funding, and Gore had no rights to make the "invented" claim.
|
Summary: Gore championed a program and took credit for it. It's what politicians do. Would you call Gore a pathological liar for it? Like Republicans did during the 2000 election? Here are some actual mistruths from Bush:
1)During the 2000 election campaign, Bush claimed that, during the Vietnam conflict, "My first impulse and first inclination was to support the country". His first impulse seems, in fact, to have been to avoid both the draft and active duty. George W Bush was, at best, a bit free with the truth.
2)Bush said no one to his knowledge helped him get into the National Guard. In fact, according to testimony by Texas Speaker of the House Ben Barnes, Houston businessman (and Bush family friend) Sid Adger requested that Barnes refer Bush’s name to a high-ranking Guard official, Gen. James Rose. Rose got Bush into the Guard ahead of 500 other applicants (most far more qualified than Dubya). George W Bush lied.
3)Bush claims to have "some recollection" of turning up for the drills required of Guardsmen during his last year of duty. In fact, there is no record that he showed up at all - and testimony from his commanding officer that he never saw Bush once during that period. George W Bush lied - and deserted.
4)Early last year, Bush told Bob Kiss, Speaker of the West Virginia House of Delegates, that he had "been to war". In fact, he has never been to war - he's just trying to send tens of thousands of other people to war. George W Bush lied.
5)Bush has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing in his sale of Harken stock preceding their disclosure of more than $23 million in losses, which caused the stock to fall 20 percent. In fact, on June 11, 1990, Bush attended a meeting on Harken's plan to sell off two subsidiaries to avert bankruptcy. The Haynes and Boone law firm advised Harken officers and directors on June 15, 1990, that if they possessed any negative information about the company’s outlook, a stock sale would be considered illegal trading. On June 22, 1990, Bush sold 212,140 shares (originally purchased 40% below face value) to a still-unidentified buyer (rather than on the open market) for four dollars per share. They are now worth two cents apiece. George W Bush lied, cheated, and broke the law.
6)For years, Bush claimed that he sent the reports of that stock sale and three others in on time and that the SEC had lost them. Last year, he shifted the blame to Harken’s lawyers for the late filings, before changing his story again to say that he simply didn’t know what had happened. In fact, we still don't know why he missed the deadlines by up to eight months, but we do know that, regarding having sent the reports in on time, George W Bush lied.
7)Bush has repeatedly avoided answering questions about his cocaine abuse and possible addiction. He has never outright denied it, but has consistently refused to acknowledge his abuse. Three independent sources now report that Bush was arrested in 1972 for cocaine possession and taken to Harris County Jail, but avoided jail or formal charges through an informal diversion plan involving community service with Project PULL, an inner city Houston program for troubled youths. Another witness admits to having sold Bush cocaine. George W Bush has refused to be honest or truthful.
8)Bush cited the expansion of the Children’s Health Insurance Program as an example of his bipartisan efforts as Governor of Texas. In fact, Bush vehemently opposed the expansion of CHIP and, after losing the legislative battle (which did, indeed, have bipartisan support - just not Dubya's), he claimed credit for the CHIP expansion and his success in working with Democrats during the 2000 election campaign. George W Bush lied.
9)Bush cited as his most significant environmental accomplishment as Governor the setting of new rules for grand-fathered industrial plants, previously exempt from Texas clean air laws. In fact, those plants were asked only to voluntarily comply with the clean air rules with no penalties for industries that didn’t seek a permit under the law; it was the kind of standard that polluting industries might have written for themselves (and as it turned out, they had). George W Bush lied.
10)During the October 11, 2000, debate, Bush stated that the Clinton-Gore administration "took 40 million acres of land out of circulation without consulting local officials," an example of their administration "just unilaterally acting without any input." In fact, according to the Sierra Club, "the Forest Service conducted 600 public meetings about the proposal nationwide and more than one million Americans urged the administration to strengthen the proposal. There was ample opportunity for local officials and others to comment on the proposal." George W Bush lied.
11)On his own record in Texas, Bush also claimed that "our water is cleaner now". In fact, the discharge of industrial toxic pollution into surface waters in Texas increased from 23.2 million pounds in 1995 to 25.2 million pounds in 1998, the last year with data available. George W Bush lied.
12)As Danya has pointed out, Bush contends that he doesn't needed focus groups or polls to tell him what to think. "We've got too much polling and focus groups going on in Washington today," Bush said. "We need decisions made on sound principles." In fact, his campaign spent roughly $1 million on polls and focus groups, about equal to the Gore campaign’s spending, according to a report by NBC News. Indeed, Bush changed his campaign slogan from "Compassionate Conservative" (another egregious lie) to "Real Plans for Real People" because of poll analysis. Mike Allen describes Bush as "preoccupied by public perceptions of the war, looking at polling data from Rove, even after pretending to have no interest." George W Bush lied.
13)In the first presidential debate, Bush claimed that the Gore campaign had "out-spent me". In fact, Bush had raised and spent more than twice as much money in the election at that stage as Gore had raised and spent. George W Bush lied.
14)During the final presidential debate, Al Gore accused Bush of opposing a patients' bill of rights. "Actually, Mr. Vice President, it's not true," Mr. Bush replied. "I do support a national patients' bill of rights. As a matter of fact, I brought Republicans and Democrats together to do just that in the state of Texas, to get a patients' bill of rights through." He added that Texas was "one of the first states that said you can sue an HMO for denying you proper coverage." In fact, in 1995 Bush vetoed the first version of the patients' rights bill that the Legislature sent him and two years later he let the section of the bill granting the right to sue go into effect without his signature. George W Bush lied.
15)While on the campaign trail, Bush promised that "as soon as I take office I will begin the process of moving the US ambassador to the city Israel has chosen as its capital." In fact, six months after taking office, signed a memorandum delaying the congressionally mandated relocation of the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. George W Bush lied.
16)Last May, Bush claimed to have read a 268-page report by the Environmental Protection Agency on global warming. In fact, as Ari Fleischer later had to point out, he did not read the report. George W Bush lied.
In his infamous "trifecta" joke, Bush claimed repeatedly that he stated during the 2000 campaign that he would keep the budget balanced except in event of war, recession, or national emergency. In fact, he never made such a statement: Bush contended that he would balance the budget without qualification. Some guy by the name of Gore, however, did use those three items as examples of what could force the government back into deficit spending. George W Bush lied about his statement, plagiarized from Gore, and broke his promise about balancing the budget.
17)When the SCI scandal broke in Texas, Bush swore in a July, 1999 affidavit, that he "had no conversations with [SCI] officials, agents, or representatives concerning the investigation or any dispute arising from it." In fact, according to SCI's boss, Robert Waltrip, and his lawyer, Johnnie B. Rogers, they visited Bush in the Governor's office and discussed the investigation. Bush and Joe Allbaugh later admitted that this was the case. George W Bush lied under oath.
18)Regarding stem cell research, Bush stated that his Great Compromise was "way beyond politics... it will lead at once to breakthrough therapies and cures... and do so without crossing a fundamental moral line." In fact, his decision was completely about politics; it will slow the progress to breakthrough therapies and cures; and it did force the pro-life movement he ostensibly endorses to cross a fundamental moral line. George W Bush lied and lied and lied.
19)Regarding Enron, Bush contended, in effect, "I did not have corporate relations with that man, Kenneth Lay." He claimed that he only "got to know" Mr. Lay in 1994. In fact, according to the Chicago Tribune, "President Bush had business ties with Enron and its predecessor companies, and first met Kenneth Lay, its chairman, sometime in the late 1980s... Previously, the president had not mentioned his business dealings with Enron and had said that he got to know Lay after he was elected governor of Texas in 1994. On Tuesday, White House communications director Dan Bartlett told the Tribune that Bush's relationship with Lay probably started when Bush was in Washington in 1987 and 1988, working on his father's presidential campaign. It could have started earlier, he said.George W Bush lied.
Bush also claimed that Kenny Boy "was a supporter" of Governor Ann Richards. While Richards simply laughs this off ("It was so silly. Why didn't he just say Ken Lay was a strong supporter and gave him a half-million dollars and is a good friend, and he's really sorry Ken's in these terrible circumstances?"), Mr. Lay, in fact, told Frontline last year that he "did support Mr. Bush over Ms. Richards" in their Texas race. George W Bush lied.
20)Bush claims to be "very supportive" of the Nunn-Lugar program and, according to Condi Rice, "The funding was not cut.. All the way back in the campaign, the president talked about perhaps even increasing funding for programs of this kind." In fact, the administration's budget request cut the Department of Energy part of the Nunn-Lugar program from $872 million to $774 million and the Department of Defense portion by another $40 million; the "materials protection and accounting" program was cut $35 million; the program to subsidize research facilities another $10 million. If Condoleeza Rice can be believed, George W Bush lied.
21)A few months into his presidency, Bush wrote to the Senator Chuck Hagel, arguing that carbon dioxide was not a pollutant and was not considered as such by the Clean Air Act. In fact, carbon dioxide is specifically mentioned in two passages in the Clean Air Act. George W Bush lied.
22)According to the Bush-Cheney "National Energy Policy", "no more than 2,000 acres will be disturbed" by the development of Area 1002 of ANWR. In fact, the Bush-Cheney plan would render over 1,000 square miles of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge useless for anything other than drilling and support activities. Bush-Cheney lied.
Now for that Washington Times article:
For one, the Washington Times is obviously conservatively biased. Just look at the ads in the margins.
Now, this article is complaining that Kerry won't release details about what foreign people he met with, when his aides said they wouldn't release details for fear of dis-trust between the Bush administration and certain countries.
| Crimson |
But on a more specific level, I find it VERY disturbing that Kerry is being caught red handed in lie after lie! But you won't find THAT on CNN!
|
Like what? What lies? Maybe you won't find them on CNN because they are completely unsubstantiated. Not everything makes it in to the mainstream media.
Remember, the Drudge report is the big time rumor site. Matt Drudge takes a chance and normally has all the rumors up on his site before anyone else. It's not the most reliable news source I'v ever seen.
| Crimson |
And one more thing, did you expect the Republicans to say "Oh yeah, well, that's true, we are a bunch of crooked liars." NO! Republicans are public officials too, and as a result, they are defending themselves and telling everyone that it's not true. DUH, this is common sense, you know.
|
But Kerry doesn't owe them an apology, because of the atrocious things that they have said. And here all of you people go saying Kerry is super-stupid without paying any attention at all.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
[Updated on: Fri, 12 March 2004 19:25] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| :/ What a dumbass. [message #71293] |
Fri, 12 March 2004 19:17 |
 |
IRON FART
Messages: 1989
Registered: September 2003
Location: LOS ANGELES
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| EvoSnipe |
4 one do not even talk about maturity, u guys r so dense u would not hear me out! i dont cheat, you shouldnt be talking about goddamn politics on a RENEGADE forum, and u can still eat my ass
your daughter too
take that as immaturity, not wat i posted above, that was true
Regards,
Evo
|
You are wierd.
| Quote: |
Quote from IRC
<[Digital]> get man_fucking_a_car.mpg
<[Digital]> ah fuck wrong window
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| :/ What a dumbass. [message #71324] |
Fri, 12 March 2004 23:09 |
 |
Hydra
Messages: 827
Registered: September 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Before I read the rest of the spam in this topic, I feel I must reply to this little snipit in one of SuperFlyingEngi's posts:| SuperFlyingEngi |
Oh, and I would like to point out that the starting point for this thread came from FOX news, probably the most biased news source in America.
|
Okay, you say FOX News is biased, yet you keep referencing us back to http://www.bushwatch.org? Are you friggin' serious???? :rolleyes:
There is not one article that even ATTEMPTS objectivity. All of their articles are "Bush is bad because he fucked up the economy!" or "Bush is bad because he fucked up the War on Terror!" NONE of them even make an attempt at objectivity!!! How can you read such crap? I would rather take FOX, a bona fide news organization that despite all your accusations of its bias, is much more credible than your stupid http://www.bushwatch.org.
I'll be editing this post more as I read more of what people wrote.
| warranto |
I'm not saying to go out and invade, or openly declare war on the terrorists, but act on the threat nonetheless.
|
You just contradicted yourself  .
| warranto |
Am I suggesting that more could of been done to prevent an attack that had been cautioned about? Yes.
|
At the time, the United States was afraid of upsetting the balance of the area and didn't feel like it was directly threatened. It turns out we were wrong since 9/11 did occur.
You say more could have been done. What more could have been done? The day before the Sept. 11 attacks, we knew there would be a terrorist attack on an unknown American city through unknown means by unknown people. All we knew at the time was that there was going to be a terrorist attack sometime soon and not much else.
Besides, you just know that if any of the 19 hijackers in the 9/11 attacks were caught that the ACLU would jump to their aid and racial profiling accusations would go flying everywhere.
| SuperFlyingEngi |
| Crimson |
And that's worse than the Democrats finding a couple 9/11 widows to read talking cards about Bush using 9/11 imagery in his ads? I think not.
|
When did that ever happen?
|
Don't you ever watch the news? :rolleyes:
Walter Keith Koester: September 22, 1962 - March 15, 2005
God be with you, Uncle Wally.
 (<---New(ish) Prayer Group Forums)
 (<---Archived Prayer Group Forums)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| :/ What a dumbass. [message #71381] |
Sat, 13 March 2004 09:33 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| hydra1945 |
Okay, you say FOX News is biased, yet you keep referencing us back to http://www.bushwatch.org? Are you friggin' serious????
There is not one article that even ATTEMPTS objectivity. All of their articles are "Bush is bad because he fucked up the economy!" or "Bush is bad because he fucked up the War on Terror!" NONE of them even make an attempt at objectivity!!! How can you read such crap? I would rather take FOX, a bona fide news organization that despite all your accusations of its bias, is much more credible than your stupid http://www.bushwatch.org.
|
A little something on FOX news being biased:
http://www.mypoliticaltake.com/article11-21-03foxnews.htm
And are you too stupid to read? What you just said highly suggests that. Mostly, bushwatch.com takes Bush's quotes, then shows what he actually did. And last I checked, they didn't have stupid crap like "Oh my god, Bush secretly killed 400 people in the state of Texas while he was governor!" Stuff you might find on FOX during the Clinton administration.
| hydra1945 |
Don't you ever watch the news?
|
Yes, but I don't take it all for granted.
| hydra1945 |
You just contradicted yourself .
|
No he didn't. You don't have to declare war on a country to purge terrorists from it. Although it's apparently the only thing Bush knows how to do.
| hydra1945 |
Before I read the rest of the spam in this topic
|
I sure hope you didn't call my posts spam, but were in fact referring to something else.
Here's something else on that Kerry statement:
http://www.americanpolitics.com/20040310Koop.html
I especially like this part:
| That website |
Naturally, FOX "News" is thunderous about this, quick on its GOP callgirl feet to attempt to make a mockery of Kerry's statements. The usual ultra-right-wing web-based spoutoffs have also joined in the fray, attacking Kerry for his statement.
|
NOTE: I've edited this post several times for updated content.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| :/ What a dumbass. [message #71481] |
Sat, 13 March 2004 20:00 |
|
Hydra
Messages: 827
Registered: September 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
A little something on FOX news being biased:
http://www.mypoliticaltake.com/article11-21-03foxnews.htm
And are you too stupid to read? What you just said highly suggests that. Mostly, bushwatch.com takes Bush's quotes, then shows what he actually did. And last I checked, they didn't have stupid crap like "Oh my god, Bush secretly killed 400 people in the state of Texas while he was governor!" Stuff you might find on FOX during the Clinton administration.
|
You have GOT to be kidding me. Did you even take a look at the sources this guy used?
In the years before WWII, the nazis conducted thousands of experiments to prove that aryan people were superior to jewish people. Each one of these experiments were set up in such a way that it would be proven every single time that the aryan was a superior human being. That is exactly what is being done by the author of every single source you post. The authors of the articles at bushwatch.org are out there to prove that George W. Bush is bad in every way, shape and form. In order to do this, they conduct phony research that will make George W. Bush out to be the bad guy every single time. Al Franken wrote his crappy book with the conception that all Republicans are liars and set out to prove that in his book.
| SuperFlyingEngi |
No he didn't. You don't have to declare war on a country to purge terrorists from it. Although it's apparently the only thing Bush knows how to do.
|
There is no other way to purge that country of terrorists if the country offers aid and support and harbors the very terrorists you are trying to kill.
Do you suggest we try to reason with people who want to kill us? :rolleyes:
| SuperFlyingEngi |
Here's something else on that Kerry statement:
http://www.americanpolitics.com/20040310Koop.html
I especially like this part:
| That website |
Naturally, FOX "News" is thunderous about this, quick on its GOP callgirl feet to attempt to make a mockery of Kerry's statements. The usual ultra-right-wing web-based spoutoffs have also joined in the fray, attacking Kerry for his statement.
|
|
That wasn't the statment everyone got angry at, numbnuts. Kerry's statement was, "This is the most crooked, lying group I've ever seen." Who was he referring to? The Bush adminsitration, of course! This was said right after a speech in which he said he had been victimized by the "Republican attack machine."
Since you are using biased sources and articles to support your views, SuperFlyingEngi, I thought I'd find an article of my own support my own views on this subject. Oh, but unlike your sources, this guy says on his home page not to believe anything he says unless it is concurrent with what you already know to be true or what you have researched for yourself. He doesn't claim to be 100% correct about everything, unlike your articles SuperFlyingEngi.
http://boortz.com/nuze/200403/03112004.html
Walter Keith Koester: September 22, 1962 - March 15, 2005
God be with you, Uncle Wally.
(<---New(ish) Prayer Group Forums)
(<---Archived Prayer Group Forums)
|
|
|
|
| :/ What a dumbass. [message #71487] |
Sat, 13 March 2004 20:54 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| hydra1945 |
You have GOT to be kidding me. Did you even take a look at the sources this guy used?
|
Did you?
| hydra1945 |
The authors of the articles at bushwatch.org are out there to prove that George W. Bush is bad in every way, shape and form. In order to do this, they conduct phony research that will make George W. Bush out to be the bad guy every single time.
|
Phony research? Like what?
| hydra1945 |
Al Franken wrote his crappy book with the conception that all Republicans are liars and set out to prove that in his book.
|
No he didn't. You're rephrasing what I said earlier about Whitewater and applying it to a different context, which in this case doesn't work. Al Franken's books have extensively exquisite research. Try and prove his books wrong on anything [besides where he's making an obvious joke.]
| hydra1945 |
There is no other way to purge that country of terrorists if the country offers aid and support and harbors the very terrorists you are trying to kill.
|
Commando operations don't fall under "War". A war is something that makes it to the media. It is in fact possible to assassinate terrorists without steamrolling a country. Which is just what Clinton did when he issued a presidential directive authorizing the assassination of Osama bin Laden. And alhough Sean Hannity likes to say this would go against the rule Reagan made about not being able to assassinate foreign heads of state, Osama bin Laden is not a head of state. Just so you know.
| hydra1945 |
That wasn't the statment everyone got angry at, numbnuts. Kerry's statement was, "This is the most crooked, lying group I've ever seen." Who was he referring to? The Bush adminsitration, of course! This was said right after a speech in which he said he had been victimized by the "Republican attack machine."
|
Crimson was jumping over Kerry for his statement about foreign leaders EARLIER IN THIS THREAD, numbnuts. And he had been victimized by the Republican attack machine, like the time where they said he had a girlfriend, which NEVER had ANY merit WHATSOEVER, or the time where they say he voted to gut intelligence, when in fact he had voted for a bill to cut funding to a billion dollar satellite that never got off the ground, basically everyone voted for it, and the bill was offered by GEORGE BUSH SENIOR! But they aren't crooked. And let's not forget that Kerry didn't know he was on camera at the time.
| hydra945 |
He doesn't claim to be 100% correct about everything
|
And it's a damn good thing he says that, too, because his articles are pretty silly. The site he references in the third paragraph of your link is just stupid, too. Kerry's "alleged heroism"? It's not alleged, he won medals in Vietnam! The war in Iraq isn't the biggest thing since WWII, I would say Vietnam probably was, considering how many Americans died there. President's actions in the wake of 9/11 were nothing short of heroic? You mean the part where he's been politicizing it the WHOLE TIME? How are Bush's references to 9/11 milder than Kerry and his part in Vietnam? Bush tlaks about 9/11 in pretty much everything he says. This whole business about only people who don't like 9/11 ads got in the news...where are all the families who support 9/11 references in his ads? Oh my god, the [i]liberal]/i] mainstream media [Guess who owns most of the mainstream media outlets? Conservatives.] is suppresing them! Well, there's no proof that they are in fact there. Oh wait! I saw one on Rush Limbaugh's show! After being screened, he talked with Limbaugh on the radio about how he thought the ads were in good taste. But wait! Limbaugh is the guy who said styrofoam was more biodegradeable than paper.
| That crappy website |
his [Kerry's] campaign is marshalling to its banner sub-rosa forces whose agenda can only be described as anti-American.
|
What the hell are they talking about?
| That first crappy website |
The reference to Kerry's "crooks and liars" comment was buried in the middle of the story.
|
Oh my god! It was in the MIDDLE of the story! What about all of the people who can't stand reading long enough to finish a story? What about all of the people who just glance at headlines without buying the paper? These people are SO UNINFORMED because of the liberal media!
| hydra1945 |
During that speech he detailed all of the positive news about America's economic picture, and mentioned that the the Democrats were attacking an economy that was strong and getting stronger! So ... what is the AP headline for this story? "Bush Blasts Democratic Attacks on Economy."
|
I'm sure he just barely touched on Democrats attacking an economy that has lost nearly 3 million jobs so far, and yet every year Bush says is getting better. I bet the WHOLE TIME he was talking about the economy getting better. But wait - why didn't the liberal media use a more sympathetic title, like Bush blasts Democratic Opinions on Economy." It's probably some kind of liberal reverse psychology.
| That first crappy website |
Do you see the difference here? When George Bush gives a speech on economic policy, the AP says he is blasting the Democrats. But the headline for the story detailing Kerry's "crooks and liars" comment only mention's Kerry's desire for deeper middle class tax cuts.
|
I do. Bush was meaning to talk to the media when he messed with the Democrats, and then Kerry is off-camera talking to someone and attacks Republicans, after crooked things they did to him, like accusing him of having a girlfriend. I wonder if FOX even bothered to cover this. Probably not, considering how liberally biased they are.
And on that War Widow group being poised to strike at Bush's ads...if one of your family members had been killed during 9/11, would you be happy about a politician politicizing your family members grave? I wouldn't. And we can just know that members of this group lost sleep over watching for 9/11 ads. I'm sure that's how it went down.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
| :/ What a dumbass. [message #71517] |
Sun, 14 March 2004 00:21 |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7428
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
1) Obviously Clinton did a great job defending the country against terrorism. :rolleyes: Why don't you tell that to the widows and widowers and orphans of 9/11 and see if they think Clinton did a great job. We sure haven't had a single attack since 9/11 now, have we?
2) Kerry issued a statement saying HE KNEW HIS MIC WAS STILL ON! Whether he knew or not, he owned up to his comments. Now he made his bed and has to lie in it, whatever the result. Don't try and say it was an accident because it WASN'T.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| :/ What a dumbass. [message #71545] |
Sun, 14 March 2004 08:18 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Aircraftkiller |
"Blah blah blah, I won't address the points, I'll just say Fox News is bad again, that'll shift his attention away from what his original statement was.."
|
Did you not read? He was talking about Bushwatch being bad and FOX being good, right? Well, first, I posted a link from a website that talks about FOX's conservative bias. Then, in the NEXT PARAGRAPH I went back to bushwatch.com.
Crimson:
1) Clinton did a great jod defending America against terrorism. After the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, Clinton put Richard Clarke in charge of creating a comprehensive plan to wipe out al Qaeda. Clarke produced a strategy paper on December 20, 2000. The plan involved these things:
1) Break up al Qaeda cells and arrest their personnel.
2) Systematically attack financial support for its terrorist activities.
3) Stop it's funding through fake charities
4) Give aid to governments having trouble with al Qaeda. (Uzbekistan, the Phillipines, and Yemen.)
5) Scale up covert action in Afghanistan to eliminate the training camps and reach bin Laden himself.
Clarke also proposed bulking up support for the Northern Alliance and putting Special Forces troops on the ground in Afghanistan.
But the plan was never carried out. It was completed just a few weeks before Bush was inaugurated, and Clinton did not want to hand Bush a war when he came in to office. He trusted Bush to defend America. It was probably the biggest mistake of his career.
(A former senior Clinton aide told Time "We would be handing [the Bush Administration] a war when they took office.")
Clinton's national security advisor, Sandy Berger attended ten briefings for his succesor, Condoleeza Rice, and her deputy Stephen Hadley. Berger made a special point of attending the briefing on terrorism. He told Dr Rice, "I believe the Bush Administration will spend more time on terrorism in general, and on al Qaeda specifically, than any other subject."
When Time asked about the conversation, "Rice declined to comment, but through a spokeswoman said she recalled no briefing at which Berger was present."
Here's a December 31, 2001 New York Times article: "As he prepared to leave office last January, Mr. Berger met with his succesor, Condoleeza Rice, and gave her a warning. He said that terrorism-and particularly Mr. bin Laden's brand of it-would consume far more of her time than she had ever imagined."
Bush announced a task force on MAY 8, 2001 that would be led by Vice President Cheney, and said that he himself would "periodically chair a meeting of the National Security Council to review these efforts." Bush never chaired such a meeting, though. Probably because Cheney's task force never actually met.
On April 30, Clarke presented an updated version of his plan to deputies of Cheney's Chief of Staff, Lewis Libby, the State Department's Richard Armitage, DOD's Paul Wolfowitz, and the CIA's John McLaughlin. They were impressed, and called for four meetings: One on Pakistan, One on al Qaeda, One on Indo-Pakistani Relations, and a fourth to integrate the three meetings. Sure, scheduling these meetings would take months and delay the possibility of acting on the plan to roll up al Qaeda, but it was sort of a step in the right direction.
On July 10, 2001, Phoenix FBI Agent Kenneth Williams sent a memo to headquarters regarding concerns over some Middle Eastern students at an Arizona Flight School, who were suggested as being al Qaeda operatives by Williams, and he urged the FBI to look in to their backgrounds. Had to dots been connected, 9/11 could have possibly been prevented.
Meanwhile, Richard Clarke and George Tenet were going nuts. Bush administration insiders would later say they had never been fully on board. Tenet was getting more and more reports of terrorism-related radio chatter. In mid-July, "George breifed Condi that there was going to be a major attack" an official told Time.
On August 6th, CIA Director Tenet, delivered a report to President Bush entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." The report warned the al Qaeda might be trying to hijack airplanes. President Bush did nothing to follow up on the memo.
On July 16, the deputies finally met in the integration meeting and approved the plan to send it to the Principals Commitee, which would not meet on the plan until September 4th. (Just so you know, President bush spent 42% of his first 7 months in office either at Camp David, the Bush compound in Kennebunkport, or at his ranch in Crawford, Texas. On August 3rd, after signing off on a plan to cut funding for programs guarding unsecured or "loose" nukes in the former Soviet Union, he headed to Crawford for the longest presidential vacation in 32 years. On September 4th, the Principals Commitee got together to approve the plan for Bush, but advise a phased-in approach, with the first phase to be demand cooperation from the Taliban. Only 8 months after Clarke briefed Condi on the plan, and almost 11 months after Clinton told Clarke to create it, his plan was finally on the move.
Oops, too late 
| Crimson |
2) Kerry issued a statement saying HE KNEW HIS MIC WAS STILL ON! Whether he knew or not, he owned up to his comments. Now he made his bed and has to lie in it, whatever the result. Don't try and say it was an accident because it WASN'T.
|
That's his way of saying that he has no intention of taking his comments back, and I would too if someone accused me of having a girlfriend with NO PROOF at ALL.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
| :/ What a dumbass. [message #71588] |
Sun, 14 March 2004 13:37 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7428
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
OK, let me get this straight... Clinton started "doing something" about the terrorist attacks in 2000, after the USS Cole bombing?
What about in January 1993, two CIA agents are shot and killed as they enter CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. The following month, February 1993, a group of terrorists are arrested after a rented van packed with explosives is driven into the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York City. Six people are killed and over 1000 are injured.
Then in November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women. A few months later in June of 1996, another truck bomb explodes only 35 yards from the US military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. It destroys the Khobar Towers, a US Air Force barracks, killing 19 and injuring over 500.
The terrorists are getting braver and smarter as they see that America does not respond decisively. They move to coordinate their attacks in a simultaneous attack on two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. These attacks were planned with precision, they kill 224. America responds with cruise missile attacks.
This was a minimally-edited summary of terrorist acts against our country from 1993 - 2000 (Clinton's term) excluding the USS Cole attack. If you remember, I posted this before, it was written by Dan Ouimette, Pensacola Civitan, on 19 Feb 2003.
These terrorist attacks have been going on since November 1979, in a country going through a religious and political upheaval. A group of Iranian students attacked and seized the American Embassy in Tehran.
Remember, I am not saying that 9/11 was Clinton's fault. But I am saying that he did basically not a damn thing against terrorism. Because ever since Bush got our troops out there to overthrow the regimes supporting terrorism, we haven't had a single attack against American soil. No embassies have been attacked, no planes hijacked... nothing. We haven't been attacked in over two years. That HAS to say SOMETHING, doesn't it?
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| :/ What a dumbass. [message #71637] |
Sun, 14 March 2004 16:11 |
EvoSnipe
Messages: 82
Registered: February 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
well guys, its like this
1.i am pretty krunk at renny
2.i dont want to rape his daughter (crabs-JK its a joke!)
3.this guy is a punk
4.i like to contribute long, useful posts, but then sumone has to reply with gay shizzle that just isnt kewl
5.did i mention im krunk?
6.Regards,
EvoKrunk
P.S. i voted bush (yes i AM 19), he did alot of good stuff 4 the country, and i like his thinking
kill the towel-heads!
nah arabs r okay, i know a guy named Ignesh
"Sacred cows make the best hamburgers"
-Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
| :/ What a dumbass. [message #71675] |
Sun, 14 March 2004 18:42 |
|
Hydra
Messages: 827
Registered: September 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| EvoSnipe |
well guys, its like this
1.i am pretty krunk at renny
2.i dont want to rape his daughter (crabs-JK its a joke!)
3.this guy is a punk
4.i like to contribute long, useful posts, but then sumone has to reply with gay shizzle that just isnt kewl
5.did i mention im krunk?
6.Regards,
EvoKrunk
P.S. i voted bush (yes i AM 19), he did alot of good stuff 4 the country, and i like his thinking
kill the towel-heads!
nah arabs r okay, i know a guy named Ignesh
|
Is there an online translator for whatever this language is?   :huh: :eh:
It's nice you voted for Bush. You should do it again  but what you shouldn't do again is post a meaningless flame post like you did before.
Walter Keith Koester: September 22, 1962 - March 15, 2005
God be with you, Uncle Wally.
(<---New(ish) Prayer Group Forums)
(<---Archived Prayer Group Forums)
|
|
|
|
| :/ What a dumbass. [message #71684] |
Sun, 14 March 2004 19:15 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
CLINTON ON TERRORISTS:
Thirty-eight days after Clinton took office, the car bomb attack on the World Trade Center launched him in to action. He captured, tryed, convicted, and imprisoned the men responsible: Ramzi Yousef, Abdul Hakim Murad, and Wali Khan Amin Shah. These men are all currently behind bars. These people were involved in further plots to kill the Pope and blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously. [Sons of b*tches] But neither happened. And neither did the huge attacks that were planned against the FBI building, the Israeli embassy in Washington, UN Headquarters, the LA and Boston airports, the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, and the George Washington bridge. Why, you ask? Because Clinton thwarted them.
How, you ask?
For one, he tripled the FBI's counterterrorism budget and doubled counterterrorism funding overall. And rolled up al Qaeda cells in more than 20 countries. And created a top-level national security post to coordinate all federal counterterrorism activity.
| [i |
Salon.com[/i]]Between 1996 and 2001, federal spending on counterterrorism increased dramatically to more than $12 billion annually. The FBI's counterterrorism budget rose even more sharply, from $78 million in 1996 to $609 million in 2000, tripling the number of agents assigned to such activities and creating a new counterterrorism center at the bureau's Washington headquarters.
|
His first crime bill contained stringent antiterrorism legislature, as did his second. The Clinton administration sponsored a series of simulations to see how local, state, and federal officials should coordinate their responses to a terrorist strike. He created a national stockpile of drugs and vaccines, including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine. And a huge long list of other stuff.
| Barton Gellman's four-part series for the Washington Post |
By any measure availible, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him. [Clinton's administration was the] first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort.
|
So on this counterterrorism stuff, you'd think both parties would be willing to put politics aside and work together, right? Wrong. Once Republicans took hold of the Congress, they fought Clinton with the same bitterness as the Whig Congress fought President James Knox Polk. Republicans fought Clinton on terrorism spending. When Clinton asked for more antiterrorism funding in 1996, Orrin Hatch objected. "The administration would be wise to utilize the resources Congress has already provided before it requests additional funding." After the Oklahoma City bombing, Republicans objected to Clinton's proposed expansion of wiretap abilities.
| House Speaker Newt Gingrich |
When you have an agency that turns nine hundred personell files over to people like Craig Livingstone, it's very hard to justify giving that agency more power
|
Gingrich was making a remark about Filegate, one of the many FOX-hyped investigations that yielded nothing and fizzled out.
In 1998, when Clinton struck targets in Sudan and Afghanistan with Tomahawk missles in retaliation for terrorist strikes against embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, Gingrich said, "The President did exactly the right thing. By doing this, we're sending the signlas that there are no sanctuaries for terrorists." Then, on September 13, 2001, Gingrich told FOX, "The lesson has to be that firing a few Tomahawks, dropping a few bombs is totally inadequate."
Immediately after the embassy bombings, Clinton issued a presidential directive authorizing the assassination of Osama bin Laden. The final al Qaeda attack of the Clinton administration came with the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, which is were I come to Richard Clarke's anti-Qaeda plan.
Oh, I know! Let's talk about Reagan's relations with terrorists!
Nearly five hundred American lives were lost between the 1983 Marine barracks bombings in Beirut and the destruction of Pan Am Flight 103. Reagan's only direct response was a single bombing run against Libya in 1986. Reagan supplied arms to violent Muslim extremists among the Afghani Mujahedeen, as well as friends in Iraq and Iran.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue May 28 13:31:07 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01287 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
