Well my "PERSONAL" opinion is that Saddam needed to be removed. I never want to see soliders die, but being a veteran I understand the consequences of it. But at the same time I am pro-choice, where most staunch republicans are pro-life. So I don't fit the mold exactly. I think we need to do whatever it takes to keep our U.S. Citizen taxpayers safe.

and what is it you do again that makes you proud of yourself? :1orglaugh

I'm always amazed at how the dumb of this country imagine that lying under oath during a sexual assault case is just "about blowjobs"

I'm then further amazed it the idiot connections they try to make concerning soldiers dying to protect our country.

I was waiting for you to show up :)

Perfectly put. Both sides lie, both sides are shady. Don't be salty because the Democrats can't put together a winning ticket.

yea, I'm just not a one issue voter. Not there is anything wrong with being a one issue voter.

Most people here are just upset about porn censorship and thats fine. They can vote that way if they want.

I just wish the democrats and liberals would do a better job of explaining the core values of their party to the people.

Most people on gfy thought the eminent domain was a replican deal. Thats core value liberal!!

I can answer you question. Find and kill Bin Ladin. That's what I would do.
I would pull the fuck out of Iraq, I would stop funding Israel.

I would spare no expense going after him, and stop using him for my political gain. You have to be kidding me if you don't think they know where he is.

As for social security. Lets make all the people and programs that have been "borrowing" money from it, pay it back. Shit social security would be solvent for the next 100+ years if it could just get it's own money back.

As far as health care goes. Lets stop letting US drug companies rape us. They get huge taxbreaks and then give all the other countries cheap drugs and fuck the rest of us.

That would save as a few billion there alone.

I could run this country if they would only let me, but alas I have to many skeletons (scorned women) in my closet.

The beautiful thing about me being a liberal, is that although I think your opinions are full of shit, I still believe you can have them.
That doesn't seem to hold true with conservatives.

I can't tell you how many times I have been called unpatriotic because I said I was a liberal. Makes me laugh being a veteran and all.

I have earned my right to talk shit about my government, have you?

A few of those things you mentioned are conservative values.


As far as the drug companies. Remember, those profits they make going into researching and delevoping the new drugs that are available.

when you look at a single pill, you cant believe it cost $20 to manufacture it.

But, consider the top notch doctors and scientists used during the years of delevopment and research to produce that pill. The cure for Cancer might come from reseach payed for by those profits.

I dont have the answer, but I dont want the drug companies cutting their research staffs or the development of medicine moved into the back office at the DMV.

Why not start with protecting our borders? Protecting the people within our country first? If liberals felt the same way, why didn't Bill Clinton get Osama Bin Laden the TWO times he was going to have him handed over to the U.S.?

What about all the useless fucks on welfare that are milking the system, have 20 kids and drive an Escalade? Think they should pay it back?

This I sort of agree with , drug companies suck. But I am unsure how we can fix it.

How did you earn the right? What makes you different than any other tax paying citizen to talk shit? As a matter of fact I served 5 years in the U.S. Army during the first gulf war. I was not sent to Iraq, but served during the war stateside as a medic. You talk about the principles and being a liberal yet most liberals want to rip apart everything this country was founded upon including the right to bear arms, which gives us the ability to overthrow our government if/when they decide that we should have no rights. This goes for either side. I don't think you are unpatriotic, you have the right to your views, but at the same time, so do I, and that doesn't make me anymore or less of a sheep than you. I have paid more than my fair share of taxes, I have served in the U.S. Armed Forces, so I would say I have earned my right to talk shit as well, however I knew I was fighting for that right when I served, as well I knew I was serving to protect my country at all costs and that I might have to die for my country when the commander-in-chief asked me to.

Very true, about the conservative values. I am very liberal on many things, and conservative on others. I will vote for who I consider the best candidate, regardless of party line. I still find it hard to believe that the republican party picked GW over McCain.

As for the drug companies, they want you to believe that. Look up CEO's and see which ones get the largest bonuses. I don't think that those profits are going into more research to help people. They are trying to make more profit, plain and simple.

I have no problem with a company making profit, it's the obscene profits that companies make at the expense of others, that bothers me.

I believe in open market economics, but that is without any taxbreaks. :winkwink:

The profits drive development.

That CEO gets paid big money because his companie's products solve people's problems. If his products didn't solve people's problems, he would get fired.

Think about if we started paying the people at the DMV a commission salary on how many people they process per day.

Do you think they would speed up, or at least attract people to work their that were more competent. Bottom line, the process would be better.

Now consider paying the drug company employees the same salary the DMV people get now with no expectation of performance.

I don't follow the political threads too much anymore.
its the same misguided kids screaming the same dopey stuff over and over.
If they haven't figured it out by now, they never will.

Well guide us with your infinite wisdom. I'm probably old enough to be your dad. Who knows if your mom is hot, you just might be.

God I hate arrogance.

nah, you stick to michael moore for your guidance. :1orglaugh
I doubt you're old enough to be my dad if you're still dropping mom jokes.
my arrogance is a byproduct of me always being right.

You must be my son, we have the same sense of humor. You actually made me laugh out loud.

Uhhhh.....nevermind.

here is the problem with your arguement is that until you prove that iraq was not using the medial facilities found to produce biological WMD bush still hasn't lied.


remember according to Dr. Bix
"While Iraq claims, with little evidence, that it destroyed all biological weapons unilaterally in 1991, it is certain that UNSCOM destroyed large biological weapons production facilities in 1996."

proving that the last time iraq lied the last time the inspectors were trying to do their job

Sadam was again preventing the UN inspectors from doing thier job just like he did in 1991 when he lied about having biological weapons production facilities.

So i ask again if sadam never had any biological weapons of mass destruction (and was not lying again like he did in 1991) why did he prevent the UN inspectors from doing their job

Dude you actually believe that the war was about "protecting the us from weapons of mass destruction". You are really not that smart.

It was plain and simple about oil and that's it. Last I heard the only person that did attack us was still on the loose.

I will rant only for a moment - first off - there's a lot of throwing around of terms that obviously a lot of people here don't understand - the misconception that the US is a democracy is foremost - it is not and hasn't been for over 100 years - it is a republic.
From the Army Training Manual in 1928:
Democracy, n. "A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any form of "direct" expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic - negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy

The framers of the constitution knew the problems with a democracy and decided that a republic would be a much better stance to take - therefore they chose to form a republic and it is even in the "pledge of allegience" we Americans say every day in grade school (to the republic for which it stands) - A republic is similar to a democracy except that it forms a governing body with the rule of law at their side and checks and balances to use in cases where it gets out of hand.

Second as far as the liberals and conservatives issue - this has been going on for hundreds of years as well - and is a part of that checks and balances - the funny part of it all (and I believe I could actually be some peoples grandfather here) is that the "mold" of liberalism that we spout off about here - is so conservative to me I have to laugh. The liberals have been so spun by the "conservative press" that they don't even realize that what is left-wing today was middle of the road 30 years ago.
When we had another war that we (I kinda define myself as a real left-winger but then I did serve 12 years in the military and I vote so I guess I have that right) really didn't approve of, we didn't sit and watch TV news - back then the government actually let the pictures of caskets flying into Dover, DE be shown (they dont allow that anymore) on TV and in newspapers. We did something about our beliefs. If you are not familiar with it - search for old stories about the weathermen, May Day in Wash DC, Students for a Democratic Society, Black Panthers, Kent State and on and on.
You will find that enough people back then actually stood up for their beliefs and were willing to die for it (hell we were dying faster in jungles than we were at home so why not?) compared to these sheep that think they are liberal now a days.
If you are a true American, you have not only a right, but a duty to be questioning every decision your elected representatives make - if you do not vote, ask the questions, and take action to fix what you believe is wrong(not what your fucking news program tells you but what you truly believe) then in my book you are not an American citizen. I'm sure that most will argue with me saying that being an American gives them the choice to not do anything - I disagree and hope that maybe some of you will start thinking and stop being little sheep to the news and BS talk shows. Maybe we can actually put some of those checks and balances back into play that everybody threw out their gas-guzzling SUVs (gee how come the people that bitch the most about oil and not having it or having to pay so much for it arent actually doing something to reduce our dependence on it?)

Ok rant over for the morning

sorry but that is the stupidest statement i have ever heard, if it was about oil why wouldn't the US anex the oil fields.

The war is directly responsible for the INCREASE in oil prices.

Wow, you are brilliant. Who is reaping the profits from high oil prices. The president and vp are from oil. Exxon/mobil and all other oil companies are making obscene profits.

Sheep, no sheep are smarter than conservatives, when they sense danger, they run.

Now this is a very smart person.

So is Rice.

interesting how you keep twisting the fact to avoid answering the question

Exxon is not reaping hirer profits from higher oil prices, they are reaping higher profits because the demand for US oil is up because consumption by the US military is up.

Those profits would exist no matter which country was invaded.

So that statement is total bullshit and you know it

can you prove that iraq never had biological WMD because you know your answer would prove that George Bush did not lie.

Just to make it clear invading iraq did make the world a safer place, all you have to do is look at the number of UN inspection teams that have been getting the run around from country leaders (zero) and you can see the direct consequence of Bush going after sadam.

All those military leader fear the crazy american in the white house so they comply with the agreements instead of jerking the inspectors around.

btw so your brilliant observation is that give his oil buddies a boost the president started a war to drive up prices of oil short term, creating a backlash against gas guzzling vehicles which is going to ultimately lead in lower profits for these same companies as people switch to fuel efficient vehicles.

And you think that not one single oil company exec in the US realizes this fact.

:1orglaugh

Abit like here in Montreal ... I was right to look for and take care of elephants ....

What, no elephants in Montreal ....????

That's what I told you: I took care of them. You see how good a job I did:


NO ELEPHANTS IN MONTREAL !!!!

If this is a way of saying that democracy is simple majority rule, while a republic is majority rule restrained by laws to protect the minority, then yes, you are right.

Right again. The big mystery of current American politics is how in the space of three-quarters of a century, the Mid-West has changed from being a hotbed of left-leaning radicalism - Kansas City even had its own socialist newspaper - into a conservative bastion of the Republicans.

Somewhere down the line we seem to have forgotten that practical politics isn't about ideology, left this and right the other. It's about parties representing constituencies and when you clear all the spin out of the way, Democrats represent the middle and working class, Republicans the wealthy. Just as they always have.

Which brings us back to the Mid-West where today's generation faces exactly the same problems as its grandparents, but apparently believes the solution lies in the exact opposite direction. It is bizarre that workers are voting for the party which is systematically stripping almost every right granted to them over the past hundred years and returning to the wealthy privileges their grandfathers threw out. They also tolerate that the issues which they claim matter to them are totally ignored, except when their votes are needed again. 70 years or so ago even farmers belonged to militant organisations, but today they will vote in favor of their own extinction.

Why don't you look up the profits of Exxon-Mobil. If you do, you will see a spike in profits beginning with the quarter after the war started.

Yeah we are a whole lot safer now. OMFG we are now breeding a whole new generation of terrorists. Were there any in Iraq before the war, no. Are they there now, yes.

We have been lucky up to this point. These terrorists think in decades, not years or months. It's a marathon for them and not a sprint.

Why don't you ask some Londoners if they are safer now or before the war.

You can't just attack a country unprovoked and expect everyone in that part of the world to cheer for you. We are acting imperialistic not democratic.

Who the fuck are we to tell other countries how to do things. We can't even get an honest election in this country. It has to be won in the supreme court.

You forget...
They're on a mission from God
http://holyrolypoly.com/images/baghdad-brothers.jpg :upsidedow

a lie about a blow job is not like a lie that costs thousands of lives and billions of our dollars. tell the 1700+ servicemen/women's family's that clinton's lies was on par with shrub's lies

150... :GFYBand

Gee, maybe its because the pipelines keep getting blown up.

do you understand the concept of anex, they are protecting them for the newly formed government of Iraq.

If they anexed them it would own them, american companies would have ownership rights to those oil fields.

Sort of like what britain did with hong kong before it was returned to china in 1999.

For god's sake iraq is still going to be a member of opec controling supply to drive prices up.

your wrong on two counts
first it is not a lie about a blow job (no matter how much you want it to be)
it a lie to put a person who has a blackmailable secret in a job within the pentagon. The fact that she got caught (because she was stupid enough to bragged about it) before it was used to steal information that would have put 1000, if not 100,000 of military peoples lives at risk is just great luck.

Second bush did not lie, you have no proof that he lied about WMD existing
and there is tonnes of evidence that Biological WMD existed when the inspectors were searching it was just destroyed by the time the invasion was over.

do you remember jay leno joking about how all the inspectors found flu vaccine when looking for Biological WMD.

do you know what the process is for creating a flu vaccine.
1. culture the live flu virus
2. kill the virus
3. process the bio mass into a liquid that when injected looks like the live virus so the body can become immune to the virus without suffering the potentially deadly effects of the virus



If you were producing Influenza WMD you know what you have to do
1. culture the live flu virus
2. store culture

All you have to do to hide your WMD development would be
1. kill the virus
2. process it into vaccine

Fact the amount of vaccine found was so great that it would have inoculated every man women and child (including all the rebels who were trying to overthrow sadam)

which means there are three possiblities

1. sadam is a nice dictator providing vaccine to all his people and his enemies.
2. Sadam was producing weapons grade influenza and the vacine for his own troops, however when he realized he would be caught, his scientist kill the live virus and turned it into vaccine to cover their tracks. It just a coincidence that large portion of the US supply of flu vaccine was tainted at the same time.
3. Sadam was producing weapons grade influenza and vacine for his own troops, he destroyed it and turned into vaccine, and the shortage of flu vaccine in the US was deliberate act designed to make the US vulnerable to a biological attack.


All you have to do is look at the historical record of how sadam treated his people to realize that there is a snowball chance in hell that this is true.

Ms. Lewinski's job was not in the pentagon, FWIW.

Over 150 posts and only one person has tried to answer the question. Why won't this administration testify under oath, being the trustworthy,rightous, religious, god fearing, wonderful people that they are.

It cracks me up that no one here can see just how hypocritical it is.

They throw god and integrity around, but won't live up to their own standards.

Oh well. done wasting my time and energy typing this shit on gfy.

Good Im glad you stop typing this fucking shit on GFY, worry about your kids.

you would think know more about your own current events

"In the Spring of 1996, Evelyn Lieberman, Chief of Staff, noticed the close
relationship and had her transferred to the Pentagon to try and avoid scandal. Clinton intervened and got her an important job with top security clearance as a "Confidential Assistant" to chief Pentagon spokesman, Kenneth Bacon. She received a salary of $32,700 a year including travel
expenses to Europe"

from the star report

Kenneth Bacon: Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs; Monica Lewinsky's Pentagon Supervisor

Turn off Fox, you are sounding a little brainwashed. :1orglaugh

Bill Clinton lied about a blowjob.

No amount of right wing spin will ever change that.

Bush lied to the country about the reasons he started a war.

Whatever else you've been brainwashed with is just right wing spin.

:1orglaugh

you keep ignoring all the answers i keep giving you.
Getting the president to testify under oath is witch hunt.

The fact that clinton kept being forced to testify proves that if there was any resonable level of evidence against him he could be compelled to testify under oath.

You yourself prove that democrats are willing to deliberately ignore key facts to back up your bullshit statements. (how many times have you said George Bush lied about their being any WMD even though you know the only way that is true is if Sadam is a nice dictator who produced vaccine for his enemies)

If he testified under oath he would have to deal with false criminal charges for perjury.

I love when democrats use the moral high ground arguement because it makes them look so stupid

Slick willy was compelled to testify multiple times (whitewater, travelgate, star report) and each time he had his lawyers fought tooth and nail to keep him out of the witness chair.


The evidence against George bush is so weak that the lawyers could even get Subpoena to compell him to testify (before the motion to suppress), george bush is not fighting a subpoena he is simply not volunteering to participate in a witch hunt.

Participating in an investigation when there isn't a single shred of evidence that support going after you is as stupid as going into a street fight giving your opponent weapons and handcuffing hands behind your back.

Having moral does not mean you have to be stupid.