Something about this speech troubled me. It probably would have to be this quote:
This will take time, and require sacrifice. Yet we will do what is necessary, we will spend what is necessary, to achieve this essential victory in the war on terror, to promote freedom, and to make our own nation more secure.
Last edited by Zamtuk on September 8, 2003, 12:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
Why cant the US have a ton of Lee Harvey Oswalds running around. Everything that comes out of his mouth is lies, bullshit, or lies. This boy seriously needs to be recalled or someshit.
But hey, getting your dick sucked is much more of a sin than attacking a country to rake in cash for your buddies.
Some people dont relize that were mainly the ones who buy oil in the world. Guess where that comes from? So the money that comes from the oil from Iraq, were buying and useing our own money.
Makes as much sense as giving tax breaks to millionairs to help promote job growth.
And we acted in Iraq, where the former regime sponsored terror, possessed and used weapons of mass destruction, and for 12 years defied the clear demands of the United Nations Security Council
heh
I've got 99 problems and I'm not dealing with any of them - Lay-Z
I hope to god we can vote his ass out of office next year. It just depends on a decent democratic candidate. The democrats look like a monkey fucking a football. Seriously. Thirteen months before the election, with
Bush a ripe target because of Iraq and the defecit, and who can they raise as a challenger? Nobody.
Lame. They are partially paralyzed because most of them voted to go to war, so as not to seem "un-patriotic."
I used to like Kerry but I'm not so sure anymore. He seems to be doing basically the exact thing Bush did in 2000, only on the left. Kerry has just surrounded himself with every old guard liberal moron in washington, that haven't had an original thought since the 1960s.
That 2 party system you guys have down there is so vomitous I don't know why anyone at all bothers to get up and vote.
kyoukan wrote:I used to like Kerry but I'm not so sure anymore. He seems to be doing basically the exact thing Bush did in 2000, only on the left. Kerry has just surrounded himself with every old guard liberal moron in washington, that haven't had an original thought since the 1960s.
That 2 party system you guys have down there is so vomitous I don't know why anyone at all bothers to get up and vote.
Yeah and Canada has a stable system that only elects effective leaders who solve all the problems of the country.
She Dreams in Digital
\"Led Zeppelin taught an entire generation of young men how to make love, if they just listen\"- Michael Reed(2005)
Howard Dean has atleast been bashing the president for all this bullshit he feeds us. Most democratic candidates never get heard, cause they have nothing interesting to say. They don't speak out and they often try to please people from the conservative side and they need to be rallying up democratic and liberal support.
I like Nader simply because he is brave enough to speak out against republicans, which democrats too far too little of. And he actually understands the importance of our environment.
Many of you might have seen Wesley Clark doing advising during the Iraq conflict for CNN. Look for him to be the next Bill Clinton (perhaps without the sex scandals, real or imagined.)
Kylere wrote:Yeah and Canada has a stable system that only elects effective leaders who solve all the problems of the country.
we do actually. economy is kicking ass, unemployment is down, dollar is up, and were finally getting some great laws passed that really advance our culture further into the modern world instead of being ruled by a bunch of politician-for-life, draconian, bible thumping shitfuckers that think two gay people getting married or smoking a joint is worse than dropping laser guided bombs on mosques.
I used to like Kerry but I'm not so sure anymore. He seems to be doing basically the exact thing Bush did in 2000, only on the left. Kerry has just surrounded himself with every old guard liberal moron in washington, that haven't had an original thought since the 1960s.
That 2 party system you guys have down there is so vomitous I don't know why anyone at all bothers to get up and vote.
I don't much like the 2 party system either. But we're stuck with it for now. There aren't very many choices out there, and out of the ones I've seen I like kerry. He at least employs his brain.
I tell it like a true mackadelic.
Founder of Ixtlan - the SCUM of Veeshan.
I think Hillary could win if she ran. It would be cool to see Bill back in the white house.
I think Gore could win if he ran. Tipper in the white house puts the fear of jesus into me though.
Kerry has a chance. He's pretty a legit, and unlike Bush he actually fought in Vietnam instead of going AWOL and hiding behind his billionaire daddy. I just don't like the mistakes he's making.
Dean will lose the swing vote if he runs for president because he's putting a lot of his campaign on socialized health care.
Last edited by kyoukan on September 8, 2003, 8:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
And we acted in Iraq, where the former regime sponsored terror, possessed and used weapons of mass destruction, and for 12 years defied the clear demands of the United Nations Security Council
I don't think that Gore would get elected. While Bush has made some mistakes --though, everyone has to admit, he has had a rough term so far-- I couldn't even begin to fathom what Gore would have done in response to 9/11.
The two party system absolutely sucks and it is because of this that Americans don't vote. The major parties have passed laws over theyears that make almost impossible for a third party to get equal presentation and the media won't let third parties debate because the major parties don't want to debate them.
The democrats can't win the election right now because they are too screwed up. If they could declare a single candidate and rally behind him (or her) then they would ahve a better chance. Gore came close because people rallied behind him but he wouldn't stand a chance today. Hillary might stand a chance on pure name recognition alone. I expect her to run in 2008 though since it will be a clean run that year. Cheney is probably too old to run as president and he has way too many skeletons in his closet.
Sadly that means four more years for Dubya. I will be voting Libertarian of course unless another third party I like comes out. I probably wouldn't vote Green though. They are a bit too liberal for my tastes. I don't like the thought of what all those hippies raising my taxes. I do respect Nader for being outspoken though.
kyoukan wrote:
9/11 wouldnt have happened with gore in the white house..
That has to be the single most idiotic statement you have ever made.
No, I would say that THIS one is:
Kyoukan wrote:I think Hillary could win if she ran.
Hillary Clinton will never be President of the United States. This is my firm belief. I do agree w/ Kylere that the other comment is probably off as well.
How the hell would Gore have stopped it? His majesty would inspire the terrorists that the United States was thier ally? Al Quada hated and targeted the United States when your precious Bill Clinton was in office too, this didn't look like some terrorist kneejerk outcry against a supposed Florida election result rigging.
I don't know about 9/11, but I'm 100% sure the invasion and occupation of Iraq would never have happened if Dubya was not in the White House.
Al Quada hated and targeted the United States when your precious Bill Clinton was in office too
No doubt al Qaeda has been around for a long time, but I don't recall them ever being a direct threat to your 'homeland'.
US foreign policy is 100% to blame for the animosity in the middle east towards the US. Dubya's involment and awareness of US foreign policy is less than pitiful.
I wasn't a big fan of Clinton, but he at least made an effort to work on foreign policy. All GWB has done since he took office is isolate the US, offend and belittle past allies and turn foregin policy from diplomatic to military.
I've got 99 problems and I'm not dealing with any of them - Lay-Z
Sorry Kyou, I have to disagree that our (Canadian) method of chosing a government is more or less effective than the US. Canada has its share of issues to deal with as well (a health care system in drastic need of reform, a military that is finding it increasingly difficult to fulfill the Peacekeeping obligations the government continues to volunteer it for, a nation-wide crisis with dissatisfaction in confederation, a declining standard of living for the population, a rapacious "real" tax rate and various other economic and social woes) and most of them seem to be dealt with in spite of Ottawa's help, rather than because of it. Canada is lucky in that it is not looked to as an "international policeman", as the US is, whether they want the role or not. Our artificially low dollar and our overall reliance on resource based industry (the vast majority of which is exported to the US) is what keeps us going, not any great economic plan by the buffoons who have been elected Prime Minister as long as I have been alive. Trudeau, Mulroney, Chretien... tell me any one of them has been a decent leader with a straight face. Clark was a little better but he was too honest in telling the country what it needed and lacked the charisma to elect more than a minority, which was subsequently dissolved.
In some ways I do like the Canadian electoral system better: its what I am used to and it seems less complicated and more flexible. I also appreciate the fact that we have more than 2 parties also allows our voters greater choices in deciding who they want to support, but in a very real sense the smaller Canadian political parties really offer little more than an independant candidate/MP, and with the current configuration of 2 strong conservative parties it also almost guarantees the Liberal Party of Canada will form the governments until the conservatives either merge or one becomse dominant.
On this whole tangent, my question to the Americans is that if you are so dissatisfied with the 2 parties you have, why not form/support others? I remember Ross Perot's run for the presidency, thus I assume this is more a self-imposed limitation, rather than a constitutionally imposed one. I mean I looked at your last presidential election and thanked my stars I didn't have to choose between Gore and W too...
Wulfran Moondancer
Stupid Sidekick of the Lambent Dorf
Petitioner to Club Bok Bok
Founding Member of the Barbarian Nation Movement
kyoukan wrote:
9/11 wouldnt have happened with gore in the white house..
That has to be the single most idiotic statement you have ever made.
No, I would say that THIS one is:
Kyoukan wrote:I think Hillary could win if she ran.
Hillary Clinton will never be President of the United States. This is my firm belief. I do agree w/ Kylere that the other comment is probably off as well.
How the hell would Gore have stopped it? His majesty would inspire the terrorists that the United States was thier ally? Al Quada hated and targeted the United States when your precious Bill Clinton was in office too, this didn't look like some terrorist kneejerk outcry against a supposed Florida election result rigging.
No no Ashur, the line about Hillary just shows how utterly clueless Kyoukan is about American politics, the line about 9-11 shows how utterly idiotic Kyoukan is about the world.
She Dreams in Digital
\"Led Zeppelin taught an entire generation of young men how to make love, if they just listen\"- Michael Reed(2005)
kyoukan wrote:9/11 wouldnt have happened with gore in the white house.
The first WTC attack happened on Feb. 26, 1993. Mr. Clintons administation. The intent of that attack was the same as the second: Bring the towers down. This attack would have happened to matter who was in office.
I don't believe Kyou is clueless about American politics; to the contrary, I believe she is well informed and has a good grasp of our system. I just believe her Hillary comment was more wishful thinking than a reasonable possibility.
Yes, I believe she understands the subject at hand, but because of her political views has drawn an incorrect conclusion. She could easily say the same for me, or call me full of shit; c'est la vie.
Gore wouldn't have stopped it. It would never have happened.
Bush's entire administration is populated with the enemies of islamic militants. Men that have involved themselves in fucking arab countries for decades. If you don't believe me read any one of bin Laden's manifestos where he declares that all Americans are enemies as long as they continue to support men like Bush and most of his cabinet.
kyoukan wrote:Gore wouldn't have stopped it. It would never have happened.
Bush's entire administration is populated with the enemies of islamic militants. Men that have involved themselves in fucking arab countries for decades. If you don't believe me read any one of bin Laden's manifestos where he declares that all Americans are enemies as long as they continue to support men like Bush and most of his cabinet.
READ READ READ READ READ READ READ!!!!!!
Skogen summed it up for you!!!!1
"The first WTC attack happened on Feb. 26, 1993. Mr. Clintons administation. The intent of that attack was the same as the second: Bring the towers down. This attack would have happened to matter who was in office."
who said that the first bomb in 93 was designed to knock the tower down? I'm not an architect but even I know blowing up a couple pillars in a parking garage isn't going to bring down a sky scraper.
I realise Kyoukan thinks she knows everything, but time to face reality. The first WTC attack knocked down more than few pillars, destroyed several floors of the underground area and by the way killed people. But I guess this was just a friendly hello, along with the attack on the USS Cole, attacks on embassies and on our grounds in Saudi Arabia, right?
Just because they were more effective on 9/11 doesnt mean the goals were not the same in past.
Gosh, I wish I could vote for banana girl, as she would know how to run this country, perhaps the world. I would feel so safe.
But perhaps I should be quiet now and go read Bin Laden's manifestos, because there we shall find the truth, right?
If your head was ever out of your ass long enough to actually know what was going on, Ky, all of us would be amazed. Feel free to now make some Uncle Tom or driving Miss Daisy slurs to once again let us know how truly "liberated" you are.
But perhaps I should be quiet now and go read Bin Laden's manifestos, because there we shall find the truth, right?
No that's where you find Osama's views. And if they're so indefensible there would be no harm in reading them, would there? As they would be self-evidently nonsense, right? And shit, you might even learn something.
PS: The '93 WTC attack _was_ intended to bring a tower down as far as I know. Forget where I read it, but I read it more than once and it was quotes from an alleged planner.
Raistin wrote: Makes as much sense as giving tax breaks to millionairs to help promote job growth.
they never really gave millionares "tax breaks" just that the taxes were some 10% higher then everyone elses over a certain income, they just balanced it out more with the rest of the population
thats the only reason that a lot of wealthy CEO's vote republican, and i agree with that
and kyou, do you seriously think they started planning 9/11 AFTER bush was elected, it was being planned out an assload of time before that, dont make yourself look bad
