This 'flip-flop' shit got old.. Any other actual arguments against Kerry? - GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

X

uno

RIP Dodger. BEST.CAT.EVER

Join Date: Dec 2002

Posts: 18450
Share

Post
#151

09-27-2004, 09:47 PM

Originally posted by piker
Yea, the govt he blamed where generals and people too.. Orders that never happened... This can be verified by 265 or whatever the number of swift boat vets against kerry members there are...

Also, if you read those transcripts.. Kerry admits to himself commiting these atriosities...

Still no problem? What is a problem then?

You still believe anything the swift boat vets say? Wow. All the people on his boat would beg to differ, as would the records. The navy doesn't just hand out awards you know. All the swift boat vets are just extremely sore about his post-war activities.

Yes, he admitted to taking part in some of them, but most of what he said he was reporting what he had heard others tell stories of... whats your point?

What is a problem? Lying to the coutnry you are supposed to be leading to get them to support a war. I'd put that much higher on the list than criticisizing a war you fought in and became a decorated hero during your voluntary service.

-uno
icq: 111-914
CrazyBabe.com - porn art
MojoHost - For all your hosting needs, present and future. Tell them I sent ya!
Comment
uno

RIP Dodger. BEST.CAT.EVER

Join Date: Dec 2002

Posts: 18450
Share

Post
#152

09-27-2004, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by piker
How are republicans desperate.. Republicans aren't screaming on TV about Lieing to the Nation and Betraying America... Nor are they saying anything and everything to get elected even if it means contradicting yourself...

Its not desperate to switch your campaign 50 days out of the election?

Or how about to have the Michael Moore's and the MoveOn's spreading outright lies to swing the election.

If thats not all you got CBS and Rather doing stories based off of forged documents...

What exactly isnt desperate about the Democrats?

Um, yes they are. Both sides are doing the same damned thing, only the republicans are better at being evil and controlling the media and story.

-uno
icq: 111-914
CrazyBabe.com - porn art
MojoHost - For all your hosting needs, present and future. Tell them I sent ya!
Comment
piker

Confirmed User

Join Date: Feb 2004

Posts: 597
Share

Post
#153

09-27-2004, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by uno
The CNN employees working for the Kerry campaign are on an opinion and debate show. They are not reporters and never claimed to be impartial. That has no reflection on the news reporting of CNN.

The problem with people and being uninformed is exactly what you just said. They heard sound bytes. The meat and context don't matter. In a fuller context he said the world was a safer place sans Saddam, but the ensuing chaos has also made the world a much less safe place to be.

I'd say for immediatly it has made Iraq unsafer for some... There are some in Iraq pre-Saddam that would be executued on the spot. So that its self is a tough argument. But one can't expect the chaos to last forever. But as predicted it is increasing before it's first election for obvious reasons to most sane people... (this excludes Kerry at least his current positon). Terrorist want to defeat democracy pretty bad. And don't give me the argument it's Iraqi's in general.. because they are 25 million strong... and only 2-5k are part of the insurgency... What is amazing is there are car bombs every other day aimed at the Iraqi military recruiting process. But, yet every day Iraqi's go stand in the line knowing that maybe another car bomb might come their way...

But why is the world safer in my opinion... Because Saddam who does has terroism ties is not in control of a WMD program that produce nasty stuff very quickly.

IcooCash - DVD Content for your TGP
Cheap FreeBSD Virtual Hosting
ICQ me at 605104 for Custom PHP/MySQL Programming
Comment
uno

RIP Dodger. BEST.CAT.EVER

Join Date: Dec 2002

Posts: 18450
Share

Post
#154

09-27-2004, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by Dead13
Your post was so funny there is actually not one single intelligent thing that could be said about it.

But funny how Republicans always start shit, then blame Dems for doing it. You guys are fucking stupid and everyone sees right through all of you.

Sadly I think a lot of people don't see through it.

-uno
icq: 111-914
CrazyBabe.com - porn art
MojoHost - For all your hosting needs, present and future. Tell them I sent ya!
Comment
piker

Confirmed User

Join Date: Feb 2004

Posts: 597
Share

Post
#155

09-27-2004, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by uno
Um, yes they are. Both sides are doing the same damned thing, only the republicans are better at being evil and controlling the media and story.

You got proof of any of these claims? I got proof of mine....

IcooCash - DVD Content for your TGP
Cheap FreeBSD Virtual Hosting
ICQ me at 605104 for Custom PHP/MySQL Programming
Comment
piker

Confirmed User

Join Date: Feb 2004

Posts: 597
Share

Post
#156

09-27-2004, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by uno
You still believe anything the swift boat vets say? Wow. All the people on his boat would beg to differ, as would the records. The navy doesn't just hand out awards you know. All the swift boat vets are just extremely sore about his post-war activities.

Yes, he admitted to taking part in some of them, but most of what he said he was reporting what he had heard others tell stories of... whats your point?

What is a problem? Lying to the coutnry you are supposed to be leading to get them to support a war. I'd put that much higher on the list than criticisizing a war you fought in and became a decorated hero during your voluntary service.

Who lied? Bush followed the same intelligence that had John Kerry saying "If you don't think Saddam is a threat with nuclear weapons, don't vote for me".

And there are 200+ swift boats 8 or 9 kerry boat people... of the 200 plus are the officers that served with kerry.. I wasn't there so I won't say who is telling the truth or not.

But, I havent heard John Kerry deny any of the Swift Boat claims, instead he changed his story a bit.. But still he hasnt explained why he was in Paris or what he did there? Or about the astroicities that he said he saw...

IcooCash - DVD Content for your TGP
Cheap FreeBSD Virtual Hosting
ICQ me at 605104 for Custom PHP/MySQL Programming
Comment
piker

Confirmed User

Join Date: Feb 2004

Posts: 597
Share

Post
#157

09-27-2004, 09:54 PM

Originally posted by JSA Matt
most than expected response... feel free to answer the question

what question?

IcooCash - DVD Content for your TGP
Cheap FreeBSD Virtual Hosting
ICQ me at 605104 for Custom PHP/MySQL Programming
Comment
piker

Confirmed User

Join Date: Feb 2004

Posts: 597
Share

Post
#158

09-27-2004, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by Dead13
Just because it goes over your head, does not mean it was off-topic.

I forget you have to speak slowley to Rush listeners.

What went over my head? the lame joke about fox news? I just ignored it cus again it was not relevant... to the conversation....

So please... what did the republican start that the dems get blamed for?

IcooCash - DVD Content for your TGP
Cheap FreeBSD Virtual Hosting
ICQ me at 605104 for Custom PHP/MySQL Programming
Comment
Dead13

Confirmed User

Join Date: Mar 2003

Posts: 477
Share

Post
#159

09-27-2004, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by piker
What went over my head? the lame joke about fox news? I just ignored it cus again it was not relevant... to the conversation....

So please... what did the republican start that the dems get blamed for?

HA! PRICELESS!
Comment
phogirl69

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jul 2001

Posts: 3330
Share

Post
#160

09-27-2004, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by piker
Kerry voted for the Patriot Act....

I hear this argument alot from people here about the Bush admin's policy on pornography and obsenity? What have they done specifically to any legit businesses in this industry?

This is what the Bush administration is doing against pornography and obscenity : http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bal...home-headlines

Here is a quote:

"In this field office in Washington, 32 prosecutors, investigators and a handful of FBI agents are spending millions of dollars to bring anti-obscenity cases to courthouses across the country for the first time in 10 years. Nothing is off limits, they warn, even soft-core cable programs such as HBO's long-running Real Sex or the adult movies widely offered in guestrooms of major hotel chains."

Also 2257... They expect us webmasters to actually hold a copy of legal docs and drivers licenses of every model on every single one of our pages and banners and those records need to be available for inspection during regular bus hours. Seems like they want to get rid of porn to me and drive as much folks out of the biz as possible.
Comment
uno

RIP Dodger. BEST.CAT.EVER

Join Date: Dec 2002

Posts: 18450
Share

Post
#161

09-27-2004, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by piker
I'd say for immediatly it has made Iraq unsafer for some... There are some in Iraq pre-Saddam that would be executued on the spot. So that its self is a tough argument. But one can't expect the chaos to last forever. But as predicted it is increasing before it's first election for obvious reasons to most sane people... (this excludes Kerry at least his current positon). Terrorist want to defeat democracy pretty bad. And don't give me the argument it's Iraqi's in general.. because they are 25 million strong... and only 2-5k are part of the insurgency... What is amazing is there are car bombs every other day aimed at the Iraqi military recruiting process. But, yet every day Iraqi's go stand in the line knowing that maybe another car bomb might come their way...

But why is the world safer in my opinion... Because Saddam who does has terroism ties is not in control of a WMD program that produce nasty stuff very quickly.

Hooray! I haven't really seen you post any childish insults or anything yet.

The chaos over there has lasted thousands of years. Of course its increasing with the ramp up to partial elections in Iraq. Did you listen to Rumsfeld? They are going to hold partial elections. That is like not letting Miami, Los Angeles and Houston vote. What kind of legitmacy would a gov't like that have in a country that has been teetering on civil war for centuries?

The "insurgency" or "resistance" depending on how intellectually honest you want to be with yourself is estimated between 10-22,000 or even more. The number is probably growing every day.

Saddam's only real ties to terrorism was an after-the-fact funding of Palestinian family members of suicide bombers. He had tried to kill Bush41 rather unsuccessfully and clumsily and was promptly bombed for it. He had no wmd and there was no real program in place. I'm happy he's out of power and everything, but the way we went about it was all wrong.

Muslims view outsiders invading their land, regardless of nationality, to be enemies. It's their responsibility to get the invaders out to achieve their goals of installing a Shariah(sp?). They also don't operate with the same timeframe we do. We think years, they think in terms of lifetimes and centuries. This is not something that can be won with bombs.

-uno
icq: 111-914
CrazyBabe.com - porn art
MojoHost - For all your hosting needs, present and future. Tell them I sent ya!
Comment
Dead13

Confirmed User

Join Date: Mar 2003

Posts: 477
Share

Post
#162

09-27-2004, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by phogirl69
This is what the Bush administration is doing against pornography and obscenity : http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bal...home-headlines

Here is a quote:

"In this field office in Washington, 32 prosecutors, investigators and a handful of FBI agents are spending millions of dollars to bring anti-obscenity cases to courthouses across the country for the first time in 10 years. Nothing is off limits, they warn, even soft-core cable programs such as HBO's long-running Real Sex or the adult movies widely offered in guestrooms of major hotel chains."

Also 2257... They expect us webmasters to actually hold a copy of legal docs and drivers licenses of every model on every single one of our pages and banners and those records need to be available for inspection during regular bus hours. Seems like they want to get rid of porn to me and drive as much folks out of the biz as possible.

No, no, phogirl69, they believe they are only going to drive the "little guys" out of the "biz" and then iognor the "bit time," right wing, special, porn site operators.

But isn't that right Mr. Bush? What do you mean by 7 years, I only voted for 4?
Comment
uno

RIP Dodger. BEST.CAT.EVER

Join Date: Dec 2002

Posts: 18450
Share

Post
#163

09-27-2004, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by piker
You got proof of any of these claims? I got proof of mine....

What type of proof would you like aside from my observations. I'd be glad to find you some sources when you tell me what you are looking for. If you can't observe that by 8 am the Bush reelection people have a story on Kerry defined for the day and he starts going on the defensive by noon, I dunno what to tell ya. The fact that we are even at war and how they handled it should tell you how superbly they handle the media. Another perfect example is the swift boat people and Dan Rather.

-uno
icq: 111-914
CrazyBabe.com - porn art
MojoHost - For all your hosting needs, present and future. Tell them I sent ya!
Comment
uno

RIP Dodger. BEST.CAT.EVER

Join Date: Dec 2002

Posts: 18450
Share

Post
#164

09-27-2004, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by piker
Who lied? Bush followed the same intelligence that had John Kerry saying "If you don't think Saddam is a threat with nuclear weapons, don't vote for me".

And there are 200+ swift boats 8 or 9 kerry boat people... of the 200 plus are the officers that served with kerry.. I wasn't there so I won't say who is telling the truth or not.

But, I havent heard John Kerry deny any of the Swift Boat claims, instead he changed his story a bit.. But still he hasnt explained why he was in Paris or what he did there? Or about the astroicities that he said he saw...

Being on the same boat and being on the same river would provide different perspectives I'd imagine. Kerry's vote still makes sense if that was verbatim or not I don't know. Anyone with nuclear weapons is a threat.

He did explain what he did in Paris. It was part of his testimony to congress.

-uno
icq: 111-914
CrazyBabe.com - porn art
MojoHost - For all your hosting needs, present and future. Tell them I sent ya!
Comment
uno

RIP Dodger. BEST.CAT.EVER

Join Date: Dec 2002

Posts: 18450
Share

Post
#165

09-27-2004, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by piker
what question?

I didn't pick up on that either.

-uno
icq: 111-914
CrazyBabe.com - porn art
MojoHost - For all your hosting needs, present and future. Tell them I sent ya!
Comment
piker

Confirmed User

Join Date: Feb 2004

Posts: 597
Share

Post
#166

09-27-2004, 10:17 PM

Originally posted by phogirl69
This is what the Bush administration is doing against pornography and obscenity : http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bal...home-headlines

Here is a quote:

"In this field office in Washington, 32 prosecutors, investigators and a handful of FBI agents are spending millions of dollars to bring anti-obscenity cases to courthouses across the country for the first time in 10 years. Nothing is off limits, they warn, even soft-core cable programs such as HBO's long-running Real Sex or the adult movies widely offered in guestrooms of major hotel chains."

Also 2257... They expect us webmasters to actually hold a copy of legal docs and drivers licenses of every model on every single one of our pages and banners and those records need to be available for inspection during regular bus hours. Seems like they want to get rid of porn to me and drive as much folks out of the biz as possible.

The 2257 I agree with, this may be a poor analogy, but its like not forcing the bar to ID people.. or be able to prove that everyon the in bar is of age... This shouldnt stop legimate businesses. It may run some copyright infringers out but isn't that a good thing?

And the obscenity thing from the sounds of it they are trying to keep porn out of the hands of children or people that dont want it thrown at them...

I don't disagree that it might be going a bit overboard... but i also dont disagree that obsenity has gone overboard.. with jj tit slip on tv... what if you have a 8yr old boy watching that? He is supposed to seperate proper behavior from that.. Say he likes Justin Timberlake and wants to be like him? He may find it cool to go to school the next day and rip clothes of hes girl friends at school.

Or what about the Britney/Madona episode many young girls who idolized britney now think its cool to be a lesbian.

IcooCash - DVD Content for your TGP
Cheap FreeBSD Virtual Hosting
ICQ me at 605104 for Custom PHP/MySQL Programming
Comment
piker

Confirmed User

Join Date: Feb 2004

Posts: 597
Share

Post
#167

09-27-2004, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by uno
Being on the same boat and being on the same river would provide different perspectives I'd imagine. Kerry's vote still makes sense if that was verbatim or not I don't know. Anyone with nuclear weapons is a threat.

He did explain what he did in Paris. It was part of his testimony to congress.

These men also lived with Kerry in veitnam, it's not just about the river. But again, I wasn't there so I won't judge... But, I think the Swift Boat people have earned a right to speak. And Kerry again doesnt deny their claims...

And it was verbatim I believe their are a host of others... I'm sure google would provide them if asked... The point is Kerry lied too with your argument that the president lied... It was faulty intelligence... but even if Saddam had no WMD's he still could make a lot within short notice and possibly supply them to his terroist connections... His ability to produce them was confirmed with a NY Times interview of the former WMD program leader for Iraq. The bigger point is that before the Clinton people got involved Kerry though Iraq was better after Saddam. (I think who can really tell)

Hrm, enlighten me then, why did he goto paris?

IcooCash - DVD Content for your TGP
Cheap FreeBSD Virtual Hosting
ICQ me at 605104 for Custom PHP/MySQL Programming
Comment
phogirl69

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jul 2001

Posts: 3330
Share

Post
#168

09-27-2004, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by piker
The 2257 I agree with, this may be a poor analogy, but its like not forcing the bar to ID people.. or be able to prove that everyon the in bar is of age... This shouldnt stop legimate businesses. It may run some copyright infringers out but isn't that a good thing?

And the obscenity thing from the sounds of it they are trying to keep porn out of the hands of children or people that dont want it thrown at them...

First about the obscenity, as stated in that article I posted above, if they want to actually even go against the type of pay per view porn that is distributed in major hotel chains, that has absolutely nothing to with cp or preventing kids from accessing porn. You have to actually check in the hotel and have a cc, it's pay per view and not "thrown in anyone's face." It's not very likely that an 8 yr old is going to be able to do this. Same thing with the show "Real Sex' on HBO. Cable is an "option" for people to purchase, it is not "thrown in anyone's face" and parents can block it with a V-chip in their tv to censor what their kids watch anyways. So they still want to censor very "softcore mainstreamish stuff" that has nothing to do with child porn or kids having access to it, they want to restraint ADULTS from having access to it as well and don't want to give ADULTS the option of even deciding if they want to watch it or not.

As for 2257, it has nothing really to do with copyright infringements or being a legit business. Say for example, most gallery makers who do this f/t probably have thousands of galleries with pics of thousands of models floating out there. Some of the content probably purchased, lots probably free content from sponsor, now they want us WEBMASTERS, not just content producers to have physical photocopies of their docs at our place of business. Most sponsors will not give all their webmasters hard copies of these docs, it's just almost impossible to organize and maintain and to get all these docs... And it would also invade the models privacy and give out all her info to thousands of webmasters... it's an impossible situation... Anyone who promotes sponsors would understand this.

Last edited by phogirl69; 09-27-2004, 10:36 PM.
Comment
piker

Confirmed User

Join Date: Feb 2004

Posts: 597
Share

Post
#169

09-27-2004, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by uno
Hooray! I haven't really seen you post any childish insults or anything yet.

The chaos over there has lasted thousands of years. Of course its increasing with the ramp up to partial elections in Iraq. Did you listen to Rumsfeld? They are going to hold partial elections. That is like not letting Miami, Los Angeles and Houston vote. What kind of legitmacy would a gov't like that have in a country that has been teetering on civil war for centuries?

The "insurgency" or "resistance" depending on how intellectually honest you want to be with yourself is estimated between 10-22,000 or even more. The number is probably growing every day.

Saddam's only real ties to terrorism was an after-the-fact funding of Palestinian family members of suicide bombers. He had tried to kill Bush41 rather unsuccessfully and clumsily and was promptly bombed for it. He had no wmd and there was no real program in place. I'm happy he's out of power and everything, but the way we went about it was all wrong.

Muslims view outsiders invading their land, regardless of nationality, to be enemies. It's their responsibility to get the invaders out to achieve their goals of installing a Shariah(sp?). They also don't operate with the same timeframe we do. We think years, they think in terms of lifetimes and centuries. This is not something that can be won with bombs.

The partial elections is just a way to get elections there as soon as possible in hopes that it will settle the situation... I only hope it works...

Hrm, I heard between 2-5k, it seems if they had 10-22k they could actually do better then car bombs..

Where I think you really are wrong here... is when you think this war is muslims against americans.... This is actually more about Sunni's and Kurds and Bathist... they all want complete power... the extremist anyways... they see america as a roadblock in the way of power.. what better way to get rid of the americans then to terror them out... they terrored out the spanish.. and a few others... so it seems to work for them...

But I dont totally disagree radical muslims have a lot of propaganda against us and blame us for most of their problems...

I dont think ignoring them is the answer however... we need their resources too much for that... if the us economy was dependent on oil I'd say that would be a possiblity.. but it simply is... and we have no choice but to do business with them...

IcooCash - DVD Content for your TGP
Cheap FreeBSD Virtual Hosting
ICQ me at 605104 for Custom PHP/MySQL Programming
Comment
piker

Confirmed User

Join Date: Feb 2004

Posts: 597
Share

Post
#170

09-27-2004, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by phogirl69
First about the obscenity, as stated in that article I posted above, if they want to actually even go against the type of pay per view porn that is distributed in major hotel chains, that has absolutely nothing to with cp or preventing kids from accessing porn. You have to actually check in the hotel and have a cc, it's pay per view and not "thrown in anyone's face." It's not very likely that an 8 yr old is going to be able to do this. Same thing with the show "Real Sex' on HBO. Cable is an "option" for people to purchase, it is not "thrown in anyone's face" and parents can block it with a V-chip in their tv to censor what their kids watch anyways. So they still want to censor very "softcore mainstreamish stuff" that has nothing to do with child porn or kids having access to it, they want to restraint ADULTS from having access to it as well and don't want to give ADULTS the option of even deciding if they want to watch it or not.

As for 2257, it has nothing really to do with copyright infringements or being a legit business. Say for example, most gallery makers who do this f/t probably have thousands of galleries with pics of thousands of models floating out there. Some of the content probably purchased, lots probably free content from sponsor, now they want us WEBMASTERS, not just content producers to have physical photocopies of their docs at our place of business. Most sponsors will not give all their webmasters hard copies of these docs, it's just almost impossible to organize and maintain and to get all these docs... And it would also invade the models privacy and give out all her info to thousands of webmasters... it's an impossible situation... Anyone who promotes sponsors would understand this.

I understand the concern about 2257, but I think as a whole its better for the industry. But what do I know...

Like i said before I think they are going overboard on the obscenity issue...

But, I wonder do you think it would be much different if Kerry where elected?

IcooCash - DVD Content for your TGP
Cheap FreeBSD Virtual Hosting
ICQ me at 605104 for Custom PHP/MySQL Programming
Comment
phogirl69

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jul 2001

Posts: 3330
Share

Post
#171

09-27-2004, 10:41 PM

Originally posted by piker
I understand the concern about 2257, but I think as a whole its better for the industry. But what do I know...

But, I wonder do you think it would be much different if Kerry where elected?

I am not sure... I could be mistaken but *I think* it's the President who appoints the attorney general, anyone at this point would be better than Ashhahahahaha... this is after all a guy who had a statue renovated in order to cover her "sinful bare breasts"...

Last edited by phogirl69; 09-27-2004, 10:43 PM.
Comment
uno

RIP Dodger. BEST.CAT.EVER

Join Date: Dec 2002

Posts: 18450
Share

Post
#172

09-27-2004, 10:49 PM

Originally posted by piker
The 2257 I agree with, this may be a poor analogy, but its like not forcing the bar to ID people.. or be able to prove that everyon the in bar is of age... This shouldnt stop legimate businesses. It may run some copyright infringers out but isn't that a good thing?

And the obscenity thing from the sounds of it they are trying to keep porn out of the hands of children or people that dont want it thrown at them...

I don't disagree that it might be going a bit overboard... but i also dont disagree that obsenity has gone overboard.. with jj tit slip on tv... what if you have a 8yr old boy watching that? He is supposed to seperate proper behavior from that.. Say he likes Justin Timberlake and wants to be like him? He may find it cool to go to school the next day and rip clothes of hes girl friends at school.

Or what about the Britney/Madona episode many young girls who idolized britney now think its cool to be a lesbian.

So what if an 8 year old sees a breast? Instead the message is the body is something one should be ashamed of. Its only a big deal because we make it a big deal.

Young girls thought it was "cool" to be a lesbian since the mid-90's. Way before Britney and Madonna's psuedo-kiss. If they (girls) have an inclination and attraction towards women why should that be discouraged? Again, it is only a big deal because it is stigmatised by society. The reality is its not a big deal and neither are breasts.

-uno
icq: 111-914
CrazyBabe.com - porn art
MojoHost - For all your hosting needs, present and future. Tell them I sent ya!
Comment
piker

Confirmed User

Join Date: Feb 2004

Posts: 597
Share

Post
#173

09-27-2004, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by uno
So what if an 8 year old sees a breast? Instead the message is the body is something one should be ashamed of. Its only a big deal because we make it a big deal.

Young girls thought it was "cool" to be a lesbian since the mid-90's. Way before Britney and Madonna's psuedo-kiss. If they (girls) have an inclination and attraction towards women why should that be discouraged? Again, it is only a big deal because it is stigmatised by society. The reality is its not a big deal and neither are breasts.

I guess this is why you are a democrat and im a republican, because i disagree fundamentaly... I do believe homosexuality should be discouraged... but i understand this is probably a minor view.... but in anyways i dont think it should be encouraged....

the problem isnt the breast.. like they show on the national geographic channel.. its more of how justin ripped off her top... i think it shows a disrespect to women.. not something a role model for young males should be doing...

IcooCash - DVD Content for your TGP
Cheap FreeBSD Virtual Hosting
ICQ me at 605104 for Custom PHP/MySQL Programming
Comment
piker

Confirmed User

Join Date: Feb 2004

Posts: 597
Share

Post
#174

09-27-2004, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by phogirl69
I am not sure... I could be mistaken but *I think* it's the President who appoints the attorney general, anyone at this point would be better than Ashhahahahaha... this is after all a guy who had a statue renovated in order to cover her "sinful bare breasts"...

you are 100% correct the president appoints the attorney general.. but i dont know why you think kerry's would be much different.. a majority of the us agrees obsenity has gone too far... i could be wrong here but im pretty sure most where outraged over the janet jackson thing... which kick started all this obsencity stuff...

as far as an inclination against porn in genral that may be true.. but tell me who has been prosecuted that didnt deserve to be?

IcooCash - DVD Content for your TGP
Cheap FreeBSD Virtual Hosting
ICQ me at 605104 for Custom PHP/MySQL Programming
Comment
uno

RIP Dodger. BEST.CAT.EVER

Join Date: Dec 2002

Posts: 18450
Share

Post
#175

09-27-2004, 10:58 PM

Originally posted by piker
These men also lived with Kerry in veitnam, it's not just about the river. But again, I wasn't there so I won't judge... But, I think the Swift Boat people have earned a right to speak. And Kerry again doesnt deny their claims...

And it was verbatim I believe their are a host of others... I'm sure google would provide them if asked... The point is Kerry lied too with your argument that the president lied... It was faulty intelligence... but even if Saddam had no WMD's he still could make a lot within short notice and possibly supply them to his terroist connections... His ability to produce them was confirmed with a NY Times interview of the former WMD program leader for Iraq. The bigger point is that before the Clinton people got involved Kerry though Iraq was better after Saddam. (I think who can really tell)

Hrm, enlighten me then, why did he goto paris?

These people only became anti-Kerry when he started his post-service protests. They were then and are still irate about it and admit such. I can understand that they thought the people they knew were thought to have died for no reason in a war we shouldn't have been in. I can understand their anger. I can also see how the story has changed over the years and morphed back again. I'm going to try to find an O'Neil quote when he was standing next to and endorsing Kerry as a Senatorial candidate. It'll probably take me a min. I'd post it now, but i'm super tired and don't want to lose my train of thought.

Any gov't in the world has the potential to make WMD. Ones like North Korea and Iran have taken the lesson from Iraq and increased the speed and strength of their programs because they know we will not invade a country with actual weapons. We can't go around and attack every country that may one day possibly pose a threat. Maybe we can, but does that make it the right thing to do?

Of course Iraq is better without a brutal dictator. That isn't disputed. The way we went about the whole thing turned off most of the world and shat away any good will after 9/11. The world was with us when we went to Afghan. and for good reason. The fact that Saddam was a brutal dictator has nothing to do with the many valid reasons we did invade. If it was about human rights Iraq would have been pretty low on the list of places to invade. It simply makes a better emotional and non-logical argument to make it sound like a humanitarian mission.

I'll look for a link to the transcripts of his testimony about Paris after I find the O'Neil endorsement.

-uno
icq: 111-914
CrazyBabe.com - porn art
MojoHost - For all your hosting needs, present and future. Tell them I sent ya!
Comment
uno

RIP Dodger. BEST.CAT.EVER

Join Date: Dec 2002

Posts: 18450
Share

Post
#176

09-27-2004, 11:09 PM

Originally posted by uno
These people only became anti-Kerry when he started his post-service protests. They were then and are still irate about it and admit such. I can understand that they thought the people they knew were thought to have died for no reason in a war we shouldn't have been in. I can understand their anger. I can also see how the story has changed over the years and morphed back again. I'm going to try to find an O'Neil quote when he was standing next to and endorsing Kerry as a Senatorial candidate. It'll probably take me a min. I'd post it now, but i'm super tired and don't want to lose my train of thought.

Any gov't in the world has the potential to make WMD. Ones like North Korea and Iran have taken the lesson from Iraq and increased the speed and strength of their programs because they know we will not invade a country with actual weapons. We can't go around and attack every country that may one day possibly pose a threat. Maybe we can, but does that make it the right thing to do?

Of course Iraq is better without a brutal dictator. That isn't disputed. The way we went about the whole thing turned off most of the world and shat away any good will after 9/11. The world was with us when we went to Afghan. and for good reason. The fact that Saddam was a brutal dictator has nothing to do with the many valid reasons we did invade. If it was about human rights Iraq would have been pretty low on the list of places to invade. It simply makes a better emotional and non-logical argument to make it sound like a humanitarian mission.

I'll look for a link to the transcripts of his testimony about Paris after I find the O'Neil endorsement.

My bad, it was Lieutenant Commander George Elliott that had made a statement w/ affidavit for Unfit for command and wished to retract it and supported Kerry in his 1996 Senatorial campaign.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar..._of_kerry?pg=3

-uno
icq: 111-914
CrazyBabe.com - porn art
MojoHost - For all your hosting needs, present and future. Tell them I sent ya!
Comment
T[H]C

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jul 2002

Posts: 162
Share

Post
#177

09-27-2004, 11:11 PM

So please... what did the republican start that the dems get blamed for?

First Reagan, Bush and Rumsfeld give Saddam his power.

The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan.

First mistake

LINK

Also Reagan, Bush and Rumsfeld create Osama

President Ronald Reagan authorized the covert release of funds, high-end armaments and CIA "specialists" to assist the mujahideen in driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan, an effort that ultimately succeeded in 1989.

Second mistake

LINK

Then Bush has to clean up after the monster he helped create.

Persian Gulf War, conflict beginning in August 1990, when Iraqi forces invaded and occupied Kuwait.

W' daddy was not an idiot though...

AP George Bush Sr. predicted that "Incalculable human and political costs" would have resulted if his administration had pushed all the way to Baghdad and sought to overthrow Saddam Hussein after the U.S.-led coalition ousted the Iraqi army from Kuwait during the Persian Gulf war in 1991. "We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect rule Iraq," Bush wrote. "The coalition would have instantly collapsed. ... Going in and thus unilaterally exceeding the UN mandate would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. "Had we gone the invasion route, the US could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different - and perhaps barren - outcome."

Link

One smart move.

Then his son makes one of the most idiotic decisions a president has made in over 40 years by invading Iraq. I do not know if he lied to get this war or if he is just a moron. But I do know he does not deserve four more year as president of the United States of America.

Here is what former Treasury Secretary has to say about his old boss.

Here is what right wing and Reagan/Daddy bush supporter Pat Buchanan had to say about bush and Iraq.

Calling the invasion of Iraq "the greatest strategic blunder in 40 years, a mistake more costly than Vietnam," Buchanan writes, "If prudence is the mark of a conservative, Bush has ceased to be a conservative."

If you still want to chant "Flip-Flop!" and ignore the issues, then by all means vote for bush.

quiet - first you get the money. then you get the power. then you get the shit talking on gfy.
Comment
piker

Confirmed User

Join Date: Feb 2004

Posts: 597
Share

Post
#178

09-27-2004, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by uno
These people only became anti-Kerry when he started his post-service protests. They were then and are still irate about it and admit such. I can understand that they thought the people they knew were thought to have died for no reason in a war we shouldn't have been in. I can understand their anger. I can also see how the story has changed over the years and morphed back again. I'm going to try to find an O'Neil quote when he was standing next to and endorsing Kerry as a Senatorial candidate. It'll probably take me a min. I'd post it now, but i'm super tired and don't want to lose my train of thought.

Any gov't in the world has the potential to make WMD. Ones like North Korea and Iran have taken the lesson from Iraq and increased the speed and strength of their programs because they know we will not invade a country with actual weapons. We can't go around and attack every country that may one day possibly pose a threat. Maybe we can, but does that make it the right thing to do?

Of course Iraq is better without a brutal dictator. That isn't disputed. The way we went about the whole thing turned off most of the world and shat away any good will after 9/11. The world was with us when we went to Afghan. and for good reason. The fact that Saddam was a brutal dictator has nothing to do with the many valid reasons we did invade. If it was about human rights Iraq would have been pretty low on the list of places to invade. It simply makes a better emotional and non-logical argument to make it sound like a humanitarian mission.

I'll look for a link to the transcripts of his testimony about Paris after I find the O'Neil endorsement.

Another reason why you are a democrat and im a repulbican.... I just dont agree...

I could care less about world opinion about the war on iraq... if they agree with us join us in taking the battle to the terrorist...

Which implies I still think Iraq had terrorist ties... I just dont see how you can defend they didnt.... they had a terroist training camp for petes sake...

What did the world ever do for us? Why do we need them to love us so much? Id be happy if they loved us and were proud for all the good we do... But, Id settle to be respected...

The difference between most countries with WMD programs is they aren't attacking their neighbors, using them on their own people... and a known enemy of the us....

North Korea, in my take, are waiting for the elections in hope Kerry wins to get a more favorable shake in there deal to disarm... or maybe get out of it all together..

Iran, doesnt stand a chance... well blow there nuclear reactor up before its up and going... if we cant deal with them diplomatically...

IcooCash - DVD Content for your TGP
Cheap FreeBSD Virtual Hosting
ICQ me at 605104 for Custom PHP/MySQL Programming
Comment
piker

Confirmed User

Join Date: Feb 2004

Posts: 597
Share

Post
#179

09-27-2004, 11:19 PM

Originally posted by T[H]C
First Reagan, Bush and Rumsfeld give Saddam his power.

If you still want to chant "Flip-Flop!" and ignore the issues, then by all means vote for bush.

It was a mistake, i agree but we should ignore it now? And what makes you think dems got blamed for that?

and Bush didnt take Saddam out back then because the world thought he could be controlled...

As anyone knows if there is a diplomatic solution then you want to go that route... but that fact is 12 years and countless inspection processes later.. he was still a problem/threat to his region and to the us...

IcooCash - DVD Content for your TGP
Cheap FreeBSD Virtual Hosting
ICQ me at 605104 for Custom PHP/MySQL Programming
Comment
uno

RIP Dodger. BEST.CAT.EVER

Join Date: Dec 2002

Posts: 18450
Share

Post
#180

09-27-2004, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by piker
The partial elections is just a way to get elections there as soon as possible in hopes that it will settle the situation... I only hope it works...

Hrm, I heard between 2-5k, it seems if they had 10-22k they could actually do better then car bombs..

Where I think you really are wrong here... is when you think this war is muslims against americans.... This is actually more about Sunni's and Kurds and Bathist... they all want complete power... the extremist anyways... they see america as a roadblock in the way of power.. what better way to get rid of the americans then to terror them out... they terrored out the spanish.. and a few others... so it seems to work for them...

But I dont totally disagree radical muslims have a lot of propaganda against us and blame us for most of their problems...

I dont think ignoring them is the answer however... we need their resources too much for that... if the us economy was dependent on oil I'd say that would be a possiblity.. but it simply is... and we have no choice but to do business with them...

Oh, believe me, there is nothing I hope for more than peace over there. My brother-in-law leaves in January 10 days after the due date of my niece.

People are not just doing carbombs and the attacks on american have increased dramatically in the past few months.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/storie...09/28/251.html
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/24888.html
http://www.independent-media.tv/item...der%20Reported

See I agree with you on your last point. It isn't only muslims vs americans. That is the really interesting dynamic. It has that on the surface, but it also has all the subplots of civil war erupting and groups of people who have never gotten along throughout history also fighting each other.

I never said we should ignore them. That would be dumb. As Colin Powell is attributed (and paraphrasing a bit) "You break it, you buy it." We can't just pull out. We fucked that country up and its our responsibility to fix it, not only for their sakes, but for our own. I don't see much being fixed if we "stay the course" when the course obviously isn't working very well.

-uno
icq: 111-914
CrazyBabe.com - porn art
MojoHost - For all your hosting needs, present and future. Tell them I sent ya!
Comment
uno

RIP Dodger. BEST.CAT.EVER

Join Date: Dec 2002

Posts: 18450
Share

Post
#181

09-27-2004, 11:21 PM

Originally posted by phogirl69
I am not sure... I could be mistaken but *I think* it's the President who appoints the attorney general, anyone at this point would be better than Ashhahahahaha... this is after all a guy who had a statue renovated in order to cover her "sinful bare breasts"...

No no, the statue wasn't renovated, it was covered up. I find it scary when the A.G. is trying to cover up lady justice with a curtain.

-uno
icq: 111-914
CrazyBabe.com - porn art
MojoHost - For all your hosting needs, present and future. Tell them I sent ya!
Comment
uno

RIP Dodger. BEST.CAT.EVER

Join Date: Dec 2002

Posts: 18450
Share

Post
#182

09-27-2004, 11:26 PM

Originally posted by piker
I guess this is why you are a democrat and im a republican, because i disagree fundamentaly... I do believe homosexuality should be discouraged... but i understand this is probably a minor view.... but in anyways i dont think it should be encouraged....

the problem isnt the breast.. like they show on the national geographic channel.. its more of how justin ripped off her top... i think it shows a disrespect to women.. not something a role model for young males should be doing...

Exactly. Fundamental disagreement on beliefs is fine. I can understand not wanting to encourage homosexuality, but at the same time I can't agree that it should be discouraged. I don't like the idea of anyone trying to tell anyone else how they can or cannot be within reason and as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. I guess its the libertarian in me.

I also can't think of too many young males who like Justin Timberlake, but i'm willing to concede I might be out of touch with the pre-pubescent boy community. I don't mean to defend Justin or Janet by any means as I don't particularly like either their music or their characters, I just don't see it as such a big deal and see the whole hooplah over it as more damaging than the actual incident.

-uno
icq: 111-914
CrazyBabe.com - porn art
MojoHost - For all your hosting needs, present and future. Tell them I sent ya!
Comment
uno

RIP Dodger. BEST.CAT.EVER

Join Date: Dec 2002

Posts: 18450
Share

Post
#183

09-27-2004, 11:29 PM

Originally posted by piker
you are 100% correct the president appoints the attorney general.. but i dont know why you think kerry's would be much different.. a majority of the us agrees obsenity has gone too far... i could be wrong here but im pretty sure most where outraged over the janet jackson thing... which kick started all this obsencity stuff...

as far as an inclination against porn in genral that may be true.. but tell me who has been prosecuted that didnt deserve to be?

Larry Flynt.

Breasts are allowed on TV all over the world. America is pretty uniquely prude over it. I guess you can somehow argue that most of the rest of the worlo is morally bankrupt cause they use the occasional "fuck" "shit" or show a breast, but everywhere else seems to be holding up ok.

-uno
icq: 111-914
CrazyBabe.com - porn art
MojoHost - For all your hosting needs, present and future. Tell them I sent ya!
Comment
T[H]C

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jul 2002

Posts: 162
Share

Post
#184

09-27-2004, 11:30 PM

As anyone knows if there is a diplomatic solution then you want to go that route... but that fact is 12 years and countless inspection processes later.. he was still a problem/threat to his region and to the us...

Is that so...

The failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has prompted much handwringing over the problems with prewar intelligence. Too little attention has been paid, however, to the flip slide of the picture: that the much-maligned UN-enforced sanctions regime actually worked. Contrary to what critics have said, we now know that containment helped destroy Saddam Hussein's war machine and his capacity to produce weapons.

LINK

quiet - first you get the money. then you get the power. then you get the shit talking on gfy.
Comment
piker

Confirmed User

Join Date: Feb 2004

Posts: 597
Share

Post
#185

09-27-2004, 11:38 PM

Originally posted by T[H]C
Is that so...

LINK

Either that or he shipped his weapons to syria... 6 months is a long time... We gave him 6 months to figure out what to do with his WMD's while we talked to the UN...

But you could be right... I suppose...

IcooCash - DVD Content for your TGP
Cheap FreeBSD Virtual Hosting
ICQ me at 605104 for Custom PHP/MySQL Programming
Comment
uno

RIP Dodger. BEST.CAT.EVER

Join Date: Dec 2002

Posts: 18450
Share

Post
#186

09-27-2004, 11:39 PM

Originally posted by piker
Another reason why you are a democrat and im a repulbican.... I just dont agree...

I could care less about world opinion about the war on iraq... if they agree with us join us in taking the battle to the terrorist...

Which implies I still think Iraq had terrorist ties... I just dont see how you can defend they didnt.... they had a terroist training camp for petes sake...

What did the world ever do for us? Why do we need them to love us so much? Id be happy if they loved us and were proud for all the good we do... But, Id settle to be respected...

The difference between most countries with WMD programs is they aren't attacking their neighbors, using them on their own people... and a known enemy of the us....

North Korea, in my take, are waiting for the elections in hope Kerry wins to get a more favorable shake in there deal to disarm... or maybe get out of it all together..

Iran, doesnt stand a chance... well blow there nuclear reactor up before its up and going... if we cant deal with them diplomatically...

The terrorist training camp was just off the border of Iran in Kurdish territory in the no-fly zone. Saddam and the central gov't had no control over that area.

Do you want America to be an isolationist country being basically unilateral in most actions or would you rather we had allies in trade and future predicaments?

Saddam hadn't done anything like attacking a neighbor since the last time he was spanked for it in the Gulf War. When the Kurds in the North were gassed, pre-Gulf War, we blamed it on Iran.

North Korea is going to get the shit end of the stick regardless of who gets elected.

I agree about Iran. They don't stand a chance whether it is us or Israel who take out the reacter. Either way the backlash probably won't be pretty. Their reactors are up, they just announced they are going to start uranium enrichment programs "for energy". Diplomacy isn't going to work there unless we support all the grass roots movements for a democratic Iran. It might happen in our lifetime. I certainly hope so. Unfortunately thanks to our ally who got a verbal lashing and nothing more for supplying half the world with nuclear secrets we don't have a lifetime. If we did take out an Iranian reactor, I'm not sure we have the troops or structure to have 3 occupations simultaneously if they retaliated.

-uno
icq: 111-914
CrazyBabe.com - porn art
MojoHost - For all your hosting needs, present and future. Tell them I sent ya!
Comment
piker

Confirmed User

Join Date: Feb 2004

Posts: 597
Share

Post
#187

09-27-2004, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by uno
Larry Flynt.

Breasts are allowed on TV all over the world. America is pretty uniquely prude over it. I guess you can somehow argue that most of the rest of the worlo is morally bankrupt cause they use the occasional "fuck" "shit" or show a breast, but everywhere else seems to be holding up ok.

That was done well before John Ashhahahahaha... I think the janet jackson thing... is proof americans in general dont want it on their national tv that they let kids watch...

And we can debate about the worlds morals... i dont consider the european too high... or some of the other cultures...

IcooCash - DVD Content for your TGP
Cheap FreeBSD Virtual Hosting
ICQ me at 605104 for Custom PHP/MySQL Programming
Comment
uno

RIP Dodger. BEST.CAT.EVER

Join Date: Dec 2002

Posts: 18450
Share

Post
#188

09-27-2004, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by piker
Another reason why you are a democrat and im a repulbican....

Just so you know, I'm neither a democrat nor republican. I'm way more libertarian in stance. Fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Unfortunately GWB is neither and perhaps the antithesis of both. I would have voted for McCain in 2000, and I'd vote for Badnarik if NJ had a better margin of safety for a non-bush(Kerry) win.

My friend in Brooklyn was at the RNC protests and a group that was there had a pretty great sign and spiel.

Their sign said "Reformed Naderites" and underneath in parenthesis it said "Kerry: Slightly less evil".

I don't like the fact that I have to chose between the lesser of two evils but that is a reality.

-uno
icq: 111-914
CrazyBabe.com - porn art
MojoHost - For all your hosting needs, present and future. Tell them I sent ya!
Comment
uno

RIP Dodger. BEST.CAT.EVER

Join Date: Dec 2002

Posts: 18450
Share

Post
#189

09-27-2004, 11:44 PM

Originally posted by piker
It was a mistake, i agree but we should ignore it now? And what makes you think dems got blamed for that?

and Bush didnt take Saddam out back then because the world thought he could be controlled...

As anyone knows if there is a diplomatic solution then you want to go that route... but that fact is 12 years and countless inspection processes later.. he was still a problem/threat to his region and to the us...

How was containment not effective given all you know now?

He didn't have WMD.
He hadn't attacked anyone since.
He allowed weapons inspectors in with unfettered access toward the end until that wasn't good enough.

Who did he threaten at the start of this war?

-uno
icq: 111-914
CrazyBabe.com - porn art
MojoHost - For all your hosting needs, present and future. Tell them I sent ya!
Comment
piker

Confirmed User

Join Date: Feb 2004

Posts: 597
Share

Post
#190

09-27-2004, 11:45 PM

Originally posted by uno
The terrorist training camp was just off the border of Iran in Kurdish territory in the no-fly zone. Saddam and the central gov't had no control over that area.

Do you want America to be an isolationist country being basically unilateral in most actions or would you rather we had allies in trade and future predicaments?

Saddam hadn't done anything like attacking a neighbor since the last time he was spanked for it in the Gulf War. When the Kurds in the North were gassed, pre-Gulf War, we blamed it on Iran.

North Korea is going to get the shit end of the stick regardless of who gets elected.

I agree about Iran. They don't stand a chance whether it is us or Israel who take out the reacter. Either way the backlash probably won't be pretty. Their reactors are up, they just announced they are going to start uranium enrichment programs "for energy". Diplomacy isn't going to work there unless we support all the grass roots movements for a democratic Iran. It might happen in our lifetime. I certainly hope so. Unfortunately thanks to our ally who got a verbal lashing and nothing more for supplying half the world with nuclear secrets we don't have a lifetime. If we did take out an Iranian reactor, I'm not sure we have the troops or structure to have 3 occupations simultaneously if they retaliated.

Dont get me wrong i applaud the british and the poles and everyones else that helped with the Iraq coalition.. but to think we should change our policy to please france and germany so they support us is scary...

It's just to hard to prove Saddam was or was not a threat without all the intelligence the admin looked at... So thats why I trust their opinion...

surely its conceivable to you that hed work with terroist to harm us.. he hated us for turning our backs on him... and spanking him... and on the same token its conceivable to me the inspections did work and saddam could do nothing more then torture a few politcal opponents of his...

IcooCash - DVD Content for your TGP
Cheap FreeBSD Virtual Hosting
ICQ me at 605104 for Custom PHP/MySQL Programming
Comment
uno

RIP Dodger. BEST.CAT.EVER

Join Date: Dec 2002

Posts: 18450
Share

Post
#191

09-27-2004, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by piker
Either that or he shipped his weapons to syria... 6 months is a long time... We gave him 6 months to figure out what to do with his WMD's while we talked to the UN...

But you could be right... I suppose...

We had sat. surveillance of his "mobile biological weapons labs" that turned out to be hydrogen producers bought from the UK.

We know where they [the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." ? March 30, 2003 in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC This Week.

If we knew where they were don't you think we would have kept around the clock surveillance on them? That is aside from the utter hilarity of Rummy's statement itself.

-uno
icq: 111-914
CrazyBabe.com - porn art
MojoHost - For all your hosting needs, present and future. Tell them I sent ya!
Comment
piker

Confirmed User

Join Date: Feb 2004

Posts: 597
Share

Post
#192

09-27-2004, 11:48 PM

Originally posted by uno
How was containment not effective given all you know now?

He didn't have WMD.
He hadn't attacked anyone since.
He allowed weapons inspectors in with unfettered access toward the end until that wasn't good enough.

Who did he threaten at the start of this war?

Because every credible intelligence source in the world said he had WMD before we took our 6 month break to talk to the UN.... so he didnt attack anyone that doesnt stop him working with terrorist... inspectors themselves have said he could be hiding them.. that the job was just too hard....

but what about the stuff that we didnt know..is there anything that may have been kept out of the media reports for our own good? i dont know.. i wouldnt rule it out

IcooCash - DVD Content for your TGP
Cheap FreeBSD Virtual Hosting
ICQ me at 605104 for Custom PHP/MySQL Programming
Comment
piker

Confirmed User

Join Date: Feb 2004

Posts: 597
Share

Post
#193

09-27-2004, 11:49 PM

Originally posted by uno
We had sat. surveillance of his "mobile biological weapons labs" that turned out to be hydrogen producers bought from the UK.

If we knew where they were don't you think we would have kept around the clock surveillance on them? That is aside from the utter hilarity of Rummy's statement itself.

Ok if they are all lies why did we goto war?

IcooCash - DVD Content for your TGP
Cheap FreeBSD Virtual Hosting
ICQ me at 605104 for Custom PHP/MySQL Programming
Comment
uno

RIP Dodger. BEST.CAT.EVER

Join Date: Dec 2002

Posts: 18450
Share

Post
#194

09-27-2004, 11:50 PM

Originally posted by piker
That was done well before John Ashhahahahaha... I think the janet jackson thing... is proof americans in general dont want it on their national tv that they let kids watch...

And we can debate about the worlds morals... i dont consider the european too high... or some of the other cultures...

I know he wasn't during Ashhahahahaha, but he was prosecuted and shouldn't have been. Sorry its late and I didn't see you specify under Asshat. Looking back I can see that was implied. My bad.

I'm not sure the media and its coverage is representative of the views of the majority of americans. I think the coverage had more to do with sensationalism and ratings and jumping on the moral bandwagon.

-uno
icq: 111-914
CrazyBabe.com - porn art
MojoHost - For all your hosting needs, present and future. Tell them I sent ya!
Comment
T[H]C

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jul 2002

Posts: 162
Share

Post
#195

09-27-2004, 11:55 PM

Ok if they are all lies why did we goto war?

If not lies, then a terrible mistake. I didn?t mind bush until he got us into this mess. People can?t reward ineptness of this scale.

quiet - first you get the money. then you get the power. then you get the shit talking on gfy.
Comment
uno

RIP Dodger. BEST.CAT.EVER

Join Date: Dec 2002

Posts: 18450
Share

Post
#196

09-27-2004, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by piker
Dont get me wrong i applaud the british and the poles and everyones else that helped with the Iraq coalition.. but to think we should change our policy to please france and germany so they support us is scary...

It's just to hard to prove Saddam was or was not a threat without all the intelligence the admin looked at... So thats why I trust their opinion...

surely its conceivable to you that hed work with terroist to harm us.. he hated us for turning our backs on him... and spanking him... and on the same token its conceivable to me the inspections did work and saddam could do nothing more then torture a few politcal opponents of his...

I'm not saying we should do a 180 on policy to get others to support us, but if a policy isn't working as intended or barely at all its usually a time to rethink the policy and make ammendments where necessary.

Too much complacency and trust in the gov't breeds corruption. It is through questioning the motives and actions of the gov't that we attempt to keep it honest.

It's conceivable, but not likely. Al Qaeda considered him an enemy and socialist since he had socialist policies and was secular in his rule and practice. The possibilities would could have happened are speculation at best. The facts are he probably didn't have anything and was no real threat to anyone.

-uno
icq: 111-914
CrazyBabe.com - porn art
MojoHost - For all your hosting needs, present and future. Tell them I sent ya!
Comment
kane

Too lazy to set a custom title

Join Date: Aug 2001

Posts: 20684
Share

Post
#197

09-27-2004, 11:59 PM

Originally posted by piker
Ok if they are all lies why did we goto war?

hum. . . in no specific order

1. oil
2. revenge
3. idealistic reform AKA more influnce for us in the area
4. to project a show of strength the to the world and remind people that were are THE superpower and not to be messed with.

I do belive that Bush actually thought that there were terrorist in Iraq and I think he belived (s) that he can send in our troops and instill a democracy in there. The Egyptian president told Bush not to attack because he didn't realize what he was getting us into. He said the people of IRaq would not stand for being occupied. Bush had a brilliant military plan that worked great. He just had a very poor plan for what to do afterward and now is paying the price.

People can skoff at the UN all day and say what they will but why is it, if they are so useless, that Bush was just up there last week asking for help. Isn't that a lot like burning down your own house and then asking all your neighbors to pitch in and help pay for you to rebuild it? We can't just ignore them until we want money. Either we are in or out but we can't have it both ways.

One thing I can't understand. If Bush is really serious about making America safe how is it that still over 14,000 illegal immigrents sneak into this country every day and how is it that a TV show can go to Malaysia ( a known terrorist hotbed ) and put nuclear material on a ship, have is shipped to Los Angeles and then drive it half way across the country without getting so much as questioned?

It seems to me that the 300+ billion we have spent on Iraq could have gone a long way to securing the homeland first.

Last edited by kane; 09-28-2004, 12:04 AM.
Comment
uno

RIP Dodger. BEST.CAT.EVER

Join Date: Dec 2002

Posts: 18450
Share

Post
#198

09-28-2004, 12:01 AM

Originally posted by piker
Because every credible intelligence source in the world said he had WMD before we took our 6 month break to talk to the UN.... so he didnt attack anyone that doesnt stop him working with terrorist... inspectors themselves have said he could be hiding them.. that the job was just too hard....

but what about the stuff that we didnt know..is there anything that may have been kept out of the media reports for our own good? i dont know.. i wouldnt rule it out

The 6 month break was so that we didn't have all our troops there in the winter to have a spring attack, exactly as it happened. That entire 6 moths we were building troops up in the area and playing diplomacy.

The inspectors themselves only asked for more time to discern if he was hiding anything, which we did not give them. When we invaded Iraq with the "knowledge" of where the weapons were, and could not find them, we asked for more time. Irony eh? That didn't pan out very well.

What would have been left out of the reports? The country has fallen and all informants that needed protection have gotten it and been taken to america or elsewhere where they could be protected. I guess its possible there is something we don't know, but I wouldn't rely on that to justify a war where thousands are dead and close to 8000 american casualties(injured, maimed, killed) and untold thousands of innocent iraqis.

-uno
icq: 111-914
CrazyBabe.com - porn art
MojoHost - For all your hosting needs, present and future. Tell them I sent ya!
Comment
uno

RIP Dodger. BEST.CAT.EVER

Join Date: Dec 2002

Posts: 18450
Share

Post
#199

09-28-2004, 12:02 AM

Originally posted by piker
Because every credible intelligence source in the world said he had WMD before we took our 6 month break to talk to the UN.... so he didnt attack anyone that doesnt stop him working with terrorist... inspectors themselves have said he could be hiding them.. that the job was just too hard....

but what about the stuff that we didnt know..is there anything that may have been kept out of the media reports for our own good? i dont know.. i wouldnt rule it out

Also, lots of people thought he might have them, but no one else went to war and were perfectly content with inspections.

-uno
icq: 111-914
CrazyBabe.com - porn art
MojoHost - For all your hosting needs, present and future. Tell them I sent ya!
Comment
uno

RIP Dodger. BEST.CAT.EVER

Join Date: Dec 2002

Posts: 18450
Share

Post
#200

09-28-2004, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by piker
Ok if they are all lies why did we goto war?

Many reasons. Geopolitical strategy, domestic political maneuvering, threats to the value of US currency, unsettled scores, oil, establishing new bases and/or installing an ally in the region aside from Israel...

There are tons of reasons that all make sense but don't really justify a war in my eyes. I also don't believe the ever morphing emotional rationalizations provided by this administration.

Last edited by uno; 09-28-2004, 12:06 AM.

-uno
icq: 111-914
CrazyBabe.com - porn art
MojoHost - For all your hosting needs, present and future. Tell them I sent ya!
Comment

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 template Next

Working...