|
|
Post by Lord Mildrid the Nut Schlapper on Nov 7, 2003 18:49:22 GMT -5
I don’t rip on Dubya because he’s a total dumbass (which he is). I rip on him because he’s a total dumbass who happens to be one of the most powerful men currently residing on the planet Earth. First he cheats his way to the presidency, then he starts a frickin’ war. And why? For our protection? To liberate the peoples of Iraq? No. He did it for his own profit. Think about it, from this he will get the following things: the public support of millions of mindless Americans, he’ll have his name down in the history books, and he’ll impress his daddy. Didn’t it seem strange to you how he stated clearly that Iraq was harboring weapons of mass destruction, and used it as grounds for an invasion when they hadn’t even found any bombs? Do you know why that’s strange? Cuz there are no bombs. And how Saddam was connected with 9/11? Nope, no proof of that either. Of course he didn’t bother to mention these little details until after an entire country had been destroyed and thousands of people had died. So why don’t you go over there right now and tell our soldiers that their President lied to them and they’re dying for nothing? Or wait, tell that same thing to the people of Iraq, especially those who lost their homes and families. I believe it was an Iraqi shop owner who quoted “At least we had some order under Saddam. Now because of the Americans things are worse than before.” Oh, and here’s a little fun fact: The Bush family has money ties with the Bin Laden family. That is why I rip on Bush... How in hell did he "cheat his way in to an election" there have been many minority popular vote presidents in our country. Its the way the system works. Our political system is not a democracy based on rule of the majority, but a republic based on the rule of the minority. This system has worked for 200 years so far and I see no reason to end it. More on this and the other ppints you adress tommarow(I know I spelt this wrong but its late). Sorry I have had a lot of homework lately and have been very busy, but as promised... First of all President Bush did not start a war for his own profit. You need to stop listening to liberal conspericy (sp) theories, seriously. President Bush started the war with Iraq becasue: 1. Saddam Hussien posed an immediate clear and present danger to the United States of America with his posession of WMDs. Yes, we had no real clue as to where he was hiding them. We have found evidence that they exist. Documents stating that scientists and eqipment that could be used to produce WMDs must be moved before the UN inspectors got to the location. We have found evidence of mobile labs. We have also found empty missles without warheads, warheads which still are out there. 2. Saddam made it clear that he had no "love" for the United States. He always supported our downfall and supported the terrorist actions on 9/11. Look, he didn't offer condolences although they would have added insult to injury coming from him. He actually condoned those actions. 3. Saddam Hussien suppoted terrorism. We have found terrorist traning camps inside of Iraq. Also, Saddam paid money to the families of suicide bombers who blew themselves up in the Gaza. 4. Saddam terrorized and burtalized his own people! Is a leader of a nation supposed to do that? NO!!! Also anyone who says this war is for oil and Pres. Bush's own wealth is high on something. Not only can we get all of the oil we need from the Saudis and Kuait, but we can get oil from South America as well. How did Pres. Bush gain from this war moniterally? Politcally, yes he did profit from the war however, this always occurs. Pres. Woodrow Wilson in WWI gained popularity (a Democrat and liberal) as well as Pres. FDR during WWII, look his served four or five complete terms and either part of five or six. All becasue oif his poularity due to the war. None of them intended to recive the poularit it just came, and that's because normally American's get behind their country and support it, although there is always some opposition. The opposition currently occuring is rediculios, caused by hippy wantabes, people who fear all conflict even though ist needed, and liberals who can't stand a conservitive in the governement. Most likly the WMD's are being hid, were destroyed by Saddam just as the war was begging to hid prevent us getting our hands on them and charging him with crimes against huimanity and terroris if we ever caught him, or we sent into neighboring anti-west countires, like Syria. Now the part about the Iraqi people. After any government is topled, especially one so backward and byzantinne as Saddam's takes awile to fix and form a new governemnt. It would be unrealitic for the Iraqis to expect a new governemnt in a jify. In a recent poll done by an indepedent polling agency, 66% of Iraqis still want the troops there. Many Iraqis feel fearful of the return of Saddam, they don't understand that there is no coming back for him, if he shows his face in public again he'll be ours, dead or alive, all the same to many Americans. Now the last part... Yes, President Bush has ties to the Saudi royal family, they made him an honerary member of their family. Hmm...dosn't seem economic to me, just political in the fact that they can say that yeah we are supported by the west and a modern country. I'll have a thread on how modern in fact they are started shortly. Bin laden is also tied to the Saudi family, however to imply a connection between Pres. Saying that Bush has ecominc connections with bin laden is wrong as Pres. Bush would rather die than work with that scum bag, piece of sh-t. Just in case you missed my reply, as it this is now on page five. Once agin sorry I took so long in replying. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Mildrid the Nut Schlapper on Nov 7, 2003 18:54:36 GMT -5
By telling everone that Saddam was linked to 9/11, that he had weapons grade plutonium, that he was hiding weapons of mass destruction, and that he's fighting for the freedom of the Iraqi people, and for the safety of the world. All of those are straight, irrefutable lies. Saddam was linked to 9/11 although slighly less direct than what you would like him to be I think. The weapons grade plutonium turned out to be the fault of CIA intelligce, their still asleep while doing there job. He is alos fighting for the freedom of the Iraqi people. These are all "straight irrefutable lies." |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Mildrid the Nut Schlapper on Nov 7, 2003 19:08:02 GMT -5
Okay, so the idea of Bush plotting 9/11 is really farfetched. Like I said, it was just a thought, I wasn’t stating it as a belief of mine or anything……… But I’d say we’re the bigger threat than Saddam’s weapons. Saddam knows if he used WMD’s to kill innocents, every allied country in the world would put a bounty on his worthless head. But you talked about Clinton bombing Iraq back when he was in office? In the name of peace, he bombed a plant that was making WMD’s. Problem was, it wasn’t a bomb-making plant. It was a factory that made aspirin. Many innocents died. Shows how reliable our intel is with those big ol’ weapons, doesn’t it? I mean, the way I see it, this is kind of a reliving of WWII. See, back in the day, Germany was a leading military power. When Hitler started invading places and blowing shit up, the other countries wanted to tell him to stop, but used something called “appeasement” a.k.a. keeping their mouths shut, in hopes that they wouldn’t piss off Hitler and get invaded too. Well look at us today. The U.S. is the leading military power on Earth, and we felt like invading Iraq. Not everyone at the U.N. approved of it, especially France, who is one of the main five countries in the alliance. But we went ahead anyway without permission, and the other countries didn’t do anything about it out of fear. France spoke out against it, and sales of French products went down 25% in America, which is huge. Freedom Fries, anyone? That’s just a small taste of what happens to whoever disagrees with America, the land of peace and understanding. But anyway, no one had the courage to stop Hitler early on, and look what happened. 40 million dead from the war. Now no one’s stopping Bush, and when he’s done with Iraq, he’ll move on to North Korea, claiming they want to fire WMD’s at us too, just because they’re “dirty commies”. Then he’ll keep on looking for people who don’t agree with us. If we don’t speak out against him, more people will die. Now I’m not saying that he’s gonna kill 40 million people, or that he’s using eugenics or fascism, or that he’s a highly skillful military tactician, but the two cases are similar in the respects I mentioned. So youre're saying we should wait until he kill thousands maybe millions of our people before we should attack him?? Right  ... If we knew he could have the potential to do this we should (as we did) go in there and prevent him from using the weapons. The general notion about nuclear weapons and chemically weapons is MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), that's why there was a stalemeate against the Societ Union and noe North Korea, we know both sides are sane enough not to launch against the other, even though both sides may always try to gian an advantage over the other (Cold War). With Saddam, a person who has already shown himself to not care about his contrymen, only himself (a terrorist) can not be truted with those types of weapons to uphold MAD, thus the premptive stike against him and his corrupt regime. |
|
|
|
Post by BELETH the Mighty on Nov 11, 2003 22:29:16 GMT -5
Wow, did I stir up a shitstorm or what? Alright, time for my bigass rebuttal:
Point: I do not listen to liberal conspiracies I developed my views and opinions based on my own knowledge and sense. Just wanted to get that out of the way.
Thingy #1: The hell he didn’t cheat his way into the big chair. The electoral college system does what? It takes the majority vote of the state it represents and gives electoral votes to the chosen candidate; with the amount of votes being based on the population itself. Sounds like it should pretty much represent the majority to me. But Bush managed to get around it and win even though he lost by over 1,000,000 votes. Bullshit.
Thingy #2: Hussein didn’t pose an immediate and present danger to us. When did we receive any official threats from him, saying “America, your are assholes and I will bomb your asses.” Or something to that effect. Never, it was just ASSUMED. Assumption is a rather dangerous thing in the hands of jackasses or corrupt politicians, the latter being the current case.
Thingy #3: You say Saddam trained terrorists, but Bin Laden probably couldn’t have pulled off 9/11 without the super-duper training he received by the CIA.
Thingy: #4: No, I’m not high on anything, I’m straightedge, thank you very much.
Thingy #5: FDR was elected to all of his terms before the war, because of his “New Deal” I believe it was called, which helped the economy. He died in the middle fo the war, and Truman took over and ended it.
Thingy #6: I’m not a hippie, and I’m not afraid of conflict, I just abhor it, especially when it’s senseless, kinda like now.
Thingy #7: I bet the Iraqi’s recovery would’ve been a shitload speedier if we hadn’t just gone in and bombed everything to the fucking ground. “My fellow Americans, I think it’s best that we just rush in and blow everything to shit, and maybe we’ll find Saddam’s carcass in the rubble or something. I must go now, for Cow and Chicken is on. God Bless.”
Thingy #8: For shit’s sake, Saddam is not going to launch nukes at anyone just because he feels like it one day. He may be a totally psychotic asshole son-of-a-bastardick, but he’s not a stupid one. Hell, he managed to make himself the leader of an entire country. But he knows damn well that if he were to fire a WMD his rule would be over in the blink of an eye. The entire world wouldn’t rest until he was dead. The nukes are more bark than bite. He can push people around with them, but if he so much as says the “anth” in anthrax, we’ll be shoving our boot so far down his throat we’ll wear him as a shoe. Bush made him out to be this huge threat, because when people are afraid of something, they’ll give up their rights just to feel safe.
Oh yeah, and if it was really for the sake of the Iraqi people, Bush would’ve ended this charade long ago, because Saddam has always abused his people, we were just fishing for a reason to go after him. In fact, if his abusiveness was the actual reason, let’s start a war right now against every single country in the world with a total asshole as their leader. Wait, that wouldn’t work, cuz then we’d have to declare war on ourselves.
I think that about answers most of the shit you guys threw at me, but something in my gull bladder tells me this is just gonna spawn more crap down my throat. Maybe Scott should start paying me for this……(*wink wink*)
|
|
|
|
Post by William on Nov 12, 2003 14:22:21 GMT -5
guys guys guys...calm down...post shorter...i have no ambition to read long posts...really...
|
|
|
|
Post by scott on Nov 12, 2003 14:58:18 GMT -5
Maybe Scott should start paying me for this……(*wink wink*) Hmmmm... Either way I think I found a political writeer for sixswitch.com...eh? |
|
|
|
Post by BELETH the Mighty on Nov 12, 2003 19:50:46 GMT -5
Sorry. My response was only college essay length cuz I decided to blast all of their points at once that one time.
And hell no. I actually hate political talks, I just wanted to put in some Bush jokes and let that be all. But hey, Ravenburg was the one that challenged me to reply. And I just can't stand it when Bush supporters feel that they've won. Otherwise I'm quite non-politicalish.
|
|
|
|
Post by William on Nov 12, 2003 22:59:57 GMT -5
yeah well bush is a good persident, and thats settled (response to come...college thesis essay number two on its way)
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Mildrid the Nut Schlapper on Nov 13, 2003 19:57:01 GMT -5
Wow, more mindless garbage from the radical left.
Ok, the day you stop posting things on how Pres. Bush "cheated" his way into the presidency, is the day I'll belive you don't actually listen to liberal conspiracy theories.
Rebuttle to Point 1: I guess , I'll have to go through this again. He did not cheat his way into an election. There is no evidence that you can show that could prove otherwise. Gore supports and bleeding heart liberals just use that as another reason to whine. He won fare and square. Now, your're just unwilling to see that our country is a republic not a true democracy! A republic by definition is minority rule, not majority rule. Please consult college level United States history books and Government text-books. Mark 617 even agrees with me on this fact. Represeantatives of the state, take the majoirty winner in their state and vote for the canidate in the elctoral college. (You implied officals not neccesarily representing the state would take the state's vote and vote in the elctoral college for that canidate.) The canidate that recives the most ELECTORAL votes wins the election and the highest office in our country, not the winner of the POPULAR vote. State's recieve votes based on their poulation and two extra votes for senators, so just not solely based on population. The beauty of this system is that it gives an ALMOST equal ground to all of the states. Now here comes the argument that California recives more votes than let's say Alaska. Well, would you rather have it that California revives millions of votes while Alaska only gets a couple of thousand. Of course not, that would be insane and a gross advantage to the state of California. Now, isn't this sounding a lot more like a republic every second! Ok, now that we understand the sytem a little bit better, I'll explain the election results. Yes, Bush lost the POPULAR vote by about milion, however as I stated above the elction is won through ELECTORAL votes. Bush had more ELECTORAL votes than Al Gore and hence, won the elction. Actually Gore was the challenger of the elction results. An interesting fact, he was the only person to ever challenge presidential election results. Nixon could have in his first attempt to gain the office against Kennedy, however he had enough dignity and decency that he did not challenge the results.
Rebuttle to Point 2: Saddamn Hussien and his corrupt regime did pose an immediate clear and present danger to the national security of the United States of America. It's no secret that Saddma has never supported, liked, or said anything nice about the United Sates, you can go back to your sugar coatted world of lies and belive whatever you want. It was never assumed, he threatened us and we took care of the problem. And who are the corrupt politcians your naming? Starting to sound like McCarthy aren't you?
Rebuttle to Point 3: Yes, Saddam trained terroist. There is evidence of it in the camps out in the desert. Our troops even found one with a hollow 747 like object. Saddma gives money to the families of sucide bombers and other terrorists who die for their backward "casue". Also, Bin Laden's CIA training had nothing to do with his terroisrt activites except to show him how to train pepole like the Taliban and other Islamic militant groups. At the time of the Cold War, Bin Laden was "the enemy of my enemy", making him an ally. Bin Laden only provided a place for the terrorists to train and live before thye carried out their operation which he did not plan at all, but bankrolled.
Rebuttle to Point 4: Nothing really, but your dependence on liberal conspiracy theories, liberal media, and just plain dumb ass thoughts give the impress that your somking something. Yeah...right...a straitedge, more like a shoddy peice of metal with a trillion rough edges.
Rebuttle to Poin 5: No I'm sorry your sense of history is once again flawed. He was elected as the threat of war loomed and right smack dab near the end of it. Also, the New Deal was a relatively, good ATTEMPT to right the economy. All most all historians agree that it was the war, not the New Deal that turned the economy around. You are right Truman did end the War, but Truman was elected with FDR during the election of 1944. FDR died shortly after his election, within a year I think and Truman took over, who turned out to be a suprisingly great president as many people though he was slow mentaly.
Rebuttal to Point 6: The violence is not sensless (specifically refering to the current war in Iraq). The reasons for the violence are as follows: 1. Saddam Hussien posed an immediate clear and present danger to the United States of America with his posession of WMDs. Yes, we had no real clue as to where he was hiding them. We have found evidence that they exist. Documents stating that scientists and eqipment that could be used to produce WMDs must be moved before the UN inspectors got to the location. We have found evidence of mobile labs. We have also found empty missles without warheads, warheads which still are out there. 2. Saddam made it clear that he had no "love" for the United States. He always supported our downfall and supported the terrorist actions on 9/11. Look, he didn't offer condolences although they would have added insult to injury coming from him. He actually condoned those actions. 3. Saddam Hussien suppoted terrorism. We have found terrorist traning camps inside of Iraq. Also, Saddam paid money to the families of suicide bombers who blew themselves up in the Gaza. 4. Saddam terrorized and burtalized his own people! Is a leader of a nation supposed to do that? NO!!!
Rebuttal to Point 7: We did not bomb Iraq to the "fuc***g ground" as you so eloquently put it. We used a precision bombing campaing which significanly weakend Iraq's military and vital superstructure to make it safer for our troops and to inhibit the reasources Iraq's military. Also who and when did that person say that? It's more of your non-tolleration of Bush. More libral crap and b.s.
Rebuttle to Point 8: Actually, if Saddam had the capibilites I belive he would. Against the United States, Isreal, and the United kingdom, as well as any one else who was the United States' current ally. He would be aperson who would think that they could get away with something of that magnitude, mainly by living in bunkers like he was. I guess our development of the Bunker Buster bomb frightened him off a little bit, when our precison bombs hit his bunkers in attempts to kill targets of opertunity. Also all of you liberal anti-war hippies keep forgetting that Saddam troops still had weapons, and anti-aricraft guns. Our teoops were in danger.
Rebuttle to Point 9?: What charade, please explain. So far you seem SOOOOO much more elightened than all of us. (Hint: Extremly Sarcastic) We, the people of the United States of America, have a very well educated leader, who knows what he is doing.
Ok, that look like that answers all the garbage you threw back.
Hey, Scott if you take Seiryuken as a writer, I'll write for free!
|
|
|
|
Post by BELETH the Mighty on Nov 13, 2003 21:05:46 GMT -5
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I’m so sick of this. There’s no getting through to you people. Half of your reply was insulting me, and the other half was recycling stuff you’ve said twice already! This is never-ending! And then even after I say I don’t listen to any liberal trash, you say that I do, as if you know more about me than I do! Hell, I don’t like Gore either, he’s a dickhead too.
That’s very clever, did you think that up yourself?
And the quote with the Cow and Chicken stuff? You thought that was an actual quote, and not just a fictional, yet highly realistic, impression of Bush? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You’re a funny guy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Mildrid the Nut Schlapper on Nov 13, 2003 21:12:49 GMT -5
No, I didn't I was trying to sound extremly sacrasctic at your insult of President. You stupid fool. Also you force me to repeat myself. I can't get through to you either so were even. I repeated myself at times becasue libbys can't listen and I was defending my position. You seemed to give hoplessly up, and probably skiped all my new points and counter points in my last post.
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
You contol the world HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!
I was at least historically acurrate in what I said! You just made up bullshit that you pulled out of your a--! You just can't accept that my agrument is sounder than yours and instead of posting something that's same you post more of that liberal garbage.
|
|
|
|
Post by GilSchwartzman on Nov 13, 2003 21:26:59 GMT -5
like i said to mysteriousman and squanto, go have sex on another message board, we dont have time for your stupid "political views" when youre not even old enough to do anything about it(vote, run for office). stop typing.
|
|
|
|
Post by BELETH the Mighty on Nov 13, 2003 21:37:28 GMT -5
Fantabulous idea! Cuz you know, Ravensburg is just kicking my ass. I surrender under his mighty truths. I am his intellectual inferior. And indeed, I would most enjoy sex with him on another board.
Damn you’re good with comebacks. I wish I could be like you. Can I name my first born son AdmiralRavensburg, after you? ‘Twould be an honor.
But wait, isn’t that direct flaming? Oooooh, looks like someone needs to be paid a visit by the Anger Management Bunny. GWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
Edit >> forgot to put in maniacal laughing at the end.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Mildrid the Nut Schlapper on Nov 13, 2003 21:37:35 GMT -5
like i said to mysteriousman and squanto, go have sex on another message board, we dont have time for your stupid "political views" when youre not even old enough to do anything about it(vote, run for office). stop typing. Fu** off Gil, this isn't your debate john. We shorlty will be though. Yes we are old enough to be involved in politics. Right now if we decided to we could work for a cmapaign and be invloved that way. |
|
|
|
Post by William on Nov 13, 2003 22:43:23 GMT -5
umm..John...that comment...was well...not neseccary...its a thread on politics...how can you tell them not to talk about politics? polotics in german = Polotik...
|
|
