Why Bush Should be Impeached

[koban]

Thanks Skeptic - I'll look at them daily!


:darwinsm:

[simply one]

"Other than telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, now, die, I think the Republicans have done a fine job of getting government out of our personal lives."
- Craig Carter column, The Oregonian, 5/22/05

:chuckle:

:thumb:

I guess either other lefties will step in to fill Skeptic's spot (probably not, because all liberals are lazy welfare-relying freeloaders, right Right?), or the righties are going to have to find somewhere else to post this smilies and insults!

[koban]

:mock: simply one :darwinsm:

[simply one]

From What's Gone Wrong For America's Right in The Economist, October 1-7:

Yet there is plainly more going on than just one bad month. Mr Bush's domestic programme—notably his plan to overhaul Social Security—lies in tatters; and his attention must have drifted from matters overseas. More importantly, the current crisis points to deeper difficulties, to do with competence, cronyism and the contradictory nature of “big government conservatism”. It is not too late for Mr Bush to deal with these things; but he must do so brutally and quickly—and not just for his party's sake. It is not in anybody's interest—even those now smug Europeans who loathe Mr Bush's America—for Mr Bush to become a lame-duck president consumed by domestic woe.

The Economist has always had all sorts of ideological disagreements with Mr Bush, but our main problem with his administration has increasingly become incompetence

America's system of political appointees always risks putting the well connected, rather than the well qualified, into top jobs.

The most important is fiscal profligacy. Mr Bush has increased spending more than any president since Johnson, and cut taxes with the enthusiasm of Ronald Reagan. Second, far too much cash has gone on earmarked pork-barrel projects without economic justification.

This should remind other cronies of the administration that plum federal postings carry responsibilities, but Mr Brown was right to protest that he was not to blame for everything. Mr Bush is currently resisting attempts to set up an independent inquiry into what went wrong: he would prefer to have an inquiry led by a White House adviser. This is heinous. A thousand people have died and the tax payer faces a bill of up to $200 billion. If those two things do not merit independent investigation, then what on earth does?

The second priority is to tackle profligacy and pork. A good symbolic first step would be for Mr Bush to back a “pork-for-reconstruction” scheme, where politicians give up projects earmarked for their districts, so the proceeds can go to New Orleans; better still he should urge them to get rid of earmarking completely. More important, he should look at the contradictions underlying his brand of conservatism. That means promoting serious spending cuts, especially in entitlement programmes, and giving up some of his cherished tax cuts.

:think:

[koban]

:mock: :skeptic: clone

[Frank Ernest]

Your counter-arguments have been lame. That's why you no longer bother presenting them. You know they're lame, and you are afraid that I will embarrass you again in front of your right-wing friends by rationally pointing out how lame they really are.
:darwinsm:

[koban]

Morning Frank!

I'm off to bed, you mind the fort.

[Frank Ernest]

Vacation reading for :skeptic:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19709

[simply one]

:mock: :skeptic: clone

my turn -

:yawn:

[koban]

Yours is boring.


Try this one :Cyrus: , it's one of my favorites.

[simply one]

Alrighty.

Kobore = :Cyrus:

[koban]

Great - see, you're getting the hang of it!


I like this one, too. :emarie:

[koban]

And it's not Kobore - if you're going to be the fill-in :skeptic: , you should use ko:blabla:

[simply one]

And it's not Kobore - if you're going to be the fill-in :skeptic: , you should use ko:blabla:

Oh yes, sorry. :chuckle:

----------

Back to business:

Casey also reminded lawmakers that insurgencies usually take a decade to defeat.''There is no reason that we should believe that the insurgency in Iraq will take any less time to deal with," he said, although he did not say US forces would have to stay that long.

General Casey (Senate Hearings) on September 30 Source (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/09/30/general_backs_off_on_us_troop_cuts_in_iraq/?page=1)

The insurgency in Iraq is "in the last throes," Vice President Dick Cheney says, and he predicts that the fighting will end before the Bush administration leaves office.

V.P. Dick Cheney on May 31 Source (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/30/cheney.iraq/)

This administration's incompetence and lack of reality shows. THe V.P., in charge of feeding propaganda to Americans, says a statement which is then totally contradicted by a general, who is on the ground in Iraq and has dealt with and studied insurgencies before. Basically, this Administration is caught in another misleading statement


more to come at a later time...

[koban]

See, SO, here's where you need to read between the lines.

and he predicts that the fighting will end before the Bush administration leaves office.


What's that tell you?

Tells me that as long as the fighting is going on, the Bush administration will not leave office.

Hillary will just have to wait!

[simply one]

See, SO, here's where you need to read between the lines.




What's that tell you?

Tells me that as long as the fighting is going on, the Bush administration will not leave office.

Hillary will just have to wait!

Another interpretation of Cheney is: since the insurgency is in its last throes, the Bush administration is not long for this world.

Then again, maybe if they stay oblivious enough and keep preaching rhetoric there's the faintest chance of hoodwinking America again.... although I have a just barely enough faith in this country to think that Americans will wake up and throw this burden off our collective back.

[Frank Ernest]

Another interpretation of Cheney is: since the insurgency is in its last throes, the Bush administration is not long for this world.
:darwinsm:

Then again, maybe if they stay oblivious enough and keep preaching rhetoric there's the faintest chance of hoodwinking America again.... although I have a just barely enough faith in this country to think that Americans will wake up and throw this burden off our collective back.
:Commie:

[koban]

Oh Frank - help me throw this burden off my collective back! :darwinsm:


While you're at it, help me feel guilty about being white! :darwinsm:

[Frank Ernest]

Oh Frank - help me throw this burden off my collective back! :darwinsm:
My collectivist psychic sense tells me that you will have this collective opportunity about November, 2008. :thumb:

While you're at it, help me feel guilty about being white! :darwinsm:
Whitebread! Whitebread! You be a cracker too! Got no mojo! Neener neener! :nananana:

[koban]

:mock: :skeptic: .......... :mock: :skeptic: . .......... :mock: :skeptic: ........ :mock: :skeptic: . ........ :mock: :skeptic: . ......... :mock: :skeptic: . ........... :mock: :skeptic: ........... . :mock: :skeptic:
:mock: :skeptic: ............ :mock: :skeptic: ............ :mock: :skeptic: ........... :mock: :skeptic: . .......... :mock: :skeptic: .......... :mock: :skeptic: ........... :mock: :skeptic: ........... :mock: :skeptic:

[simply one]

:mock: :skeptic: .......... :mock: :skeptic: . .......... :mock: :skeptic: ........ :mock: :skeptic: . ........ :mock: :skeptic: . ......... :mock: :skeptic: . ........... :mock: :skeptic: ........... . :mock: :skeptic:
:mock: :skeptic: ............ :mock: :skeptic: ............ :mock: :skeptic: ........... :mock: :skeptic: . .......... :mock: :skeptic: .......... :mock: :skeptic: ........... :mock: :skeptic: ........... :mock: :skeptic:


:freak: :freak: :freak:

[Frank Ernest]

Looks like the latest impeachment manuver flopped out the gate. Wonder what went wrong. :darwinsm:

[koban]

Must have been that pesky burden on their collective backs. :chuckle:

[HerodionRomulus]

:chuckle:

:thumb:

...because all liberals are lazy welfare-relying freeloaders....

You have a brain-dead opinion of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. the most prominent liberal of our age and a man who did more good for humanity in 5 minutes than you and the other hate-filled reich-wingers could do in 5 centuries.

[koban]

You have a brain-dead opinion of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. the most prominent liberal of our age and a man who did more good for humanity in 5 minutes than you and the other hate-filled reich-wingers could do in 5 centuries.


Yeah, but you gotta admit he was a "lazy welfare-relying freeloader" :darwinsm:

[simply one]

Yeah, but you gotta admit he was a "lazy welfare-relying freeloader" :darwinsm:

I guess you have to be pretty lazy to lead a massive civil rights movement, and to successfully get laws reformed to make blacks and whites equal under law... not to mention breaking down the walls of segregation which were throughout this country during that period.

MLK jr. was one of the greatest men of the past century.

--------

on another note? When Skeptic getting back? This thread seems to be lacking its former luster...

[koban]

:mock: SO





There - how's that?

[HerodionRomulus]

Yeah, but you gotta admit he was a "lazy welfare-relying freeloader" :darwinsm:

And you have to admit you have no clue.
Did YOU get you Doctorate from Harvard?
How about the Nobel Prize?

Typical racist Republican lies by those who cannot achieve so they "kill steal and destroy" from those who DO improve the lives of other people and DO live an authentic Christian lifestyle: love, joy, peace, goodness, faith etc etc.

[On Fire]

Ya know, I don't think Bush is gonna be impeached.

[koban]

And you have to admit you have no clue.
Did YOU get you Doctorate from Harvard?

I believe you may have meant to say "Did YOU get your Doctorate from Harvard?"

:darwinsm:

How about the Nobel Prize?

not yet :D

How 'bout you?

Typical racist

You got any support for that statement, :Commie: ?

...Republican lies by those who cannot achieve so they "kill steal and destroy" from those who DO improve the lives of other people and DO live an authentic Christian lifestyle: love, joy, peace, goodness, faith etc etc.

Lighten up Francis. You do know what the :chuckle: smilie indicates, don't you?

Thanks for the laughs! :darwinsm:

:mock: HR

[Frank Ernest]

And you have to admit you have no clue.
Did YOU get you Doctorate from Harvard?
How about the Nobel Prize?

Typical racist Republican lies by those who cannot achieve so they "kill steal and destroy" from those who DO improve the lives of other people and DO live an authentic Christian lifestyle: love, joy, peace, goodness, faith etc etc.
:darwinsm:

[Frank Ernest]

Ya know, I don't think Bush is gonna be impeached.
:shocked:

[HerodionRomulus]

FE Yes I am sure you find the the idea of equal rights, liberty and justice to be laughable. You clearly disdain those values and those who promote them.

[On Fire]

Another day, another non-impeachment....

[BillyBob]

..... and to successfully get laws reformed to make blacks and whites equal under law...

Blacks and whites are not equal under the law, blacks have an unfair advantage.

[koban]

:shocked:

Don't tell Purex!!

[BillyBob]

I think he would like to know that.


[You said he's black, right?]

[koban]

I think he would like to know that.


[You said he's black, right?]



Don't you go getting me in trouble - I never said he was black! :sibbie:

[BillyBob]

Don't you go getting me in trouble - I never said he was black! :sibbie:

:devil:

[koban]

test :blabla:

[Frank Ernest]

FE Yes I am sure you find the the idea of equal rights, liberty and justice to be laughable. You clearly disdain those values and those who promote them.
:darwinsm: I find YOUR :Commie: idea of equal rights, liberty and justice to be laughable -- and delusional.

[koban]

Why Bush Should Be Impeached

Because :skeptic: says so!!!!!

:baby:

[Frank Ernest]

Because :skeptic: says so!!!!!

:baby:
I think the whole idea can be reduced to that. :thumb:

[koban]

You mean we could have saved 253 pages of posts? :mad:

Where is that Skreppie??? :sibbie:

[Frank Ernest]

:darwinsm: It's fun to go after the hard-core :Commie:s. You never know when one of them might formulate an actual fact or a rational thought.

[koban]

I suppose anything's possible! :D

[Frank Ernest]

Hey! No one thought the Titanic could sink either.

[HerodionRomulus]

Blacks and whites are not equal under the law, blacks have an unfair advantage.


You probably mean Affirmative Action which is a mechanism of rectification for the centuries when whites had an additional rights and advantages to the detriment of other citizens.

If you are swindled by Home Depot don't you feel that you should be able to obtain restitution for your loss?
If you don't then buddy I got a lovely bit of land to sell you at a low price. Great location just 30 miles east of downtown Miami. :sinapisN: Then there's this bridge.....

[koban]

You probably mean Affirmative Action which is a mechanism of rectification for the centuries when whites had an additional rights and advantages to the detriment of other citizens.

If you are swindled by Home Depot don't you feel that you should be able to obtain restitution for your loss?
If you don't then buddy I got a lovely bit of land to sell you at a low price. Great location just 30 miles east of downtown Miami. :sinapisN: Then there's this bridge.....


If my great-grandfather was swindled by the pre-cursor to the pre-cursor to the pre-cursor to Home Depot back in the early 1800's , should I be able to seek restitution?

Or should I just stand in the rain like a liberal and
:taoist: about it? :baby:

[Frank Ernest]

You probably mean Affirmative Action which is a mechanism of rectification for the centuries when whites had an additional rights and advantages to the detriment of other citizens.
Oh! You mean Affirmative Action is nothing more than revenge for long-past wrongs.

Understood! :thumb:

[simply one]

Oh! You mean Affirmative Action is nothing more than revenge for long-past wrongs.

Understood! :thumb:

HUNDREDS OF YEARS OF FORCED LABOR. For centuries, blacks were forced to labor, without pay, and with no rights.

The prejudices strongly imprinted into the subconcious of Americans still exists today.

So, yes, I think after being treated as PROPERTY for centuries, and then over a hundred years more of segregation, leading to prejudices which still exist today, that blacks deserve to be given an extra foot up.

But WAHHH. Its unfair! Well, if you think its unfair then you and your children and your childrens' children and so on should work for no pay for a few hundred years, to be treated as animals, property.

[koban]

HUNDREDS OF YEARS OF FORCED LABOR. For centuries, blacks were forced to labor, without pay, and with no rights.

The prejudices strongly imprinted into the subconcious of Americans still exists today.

So, yes, I think after being treated as PROPERTY for centuries, and then over a hundred years more of segregation, leading to prejudices which still exist today, that blacks deserve to be given an extra foot up.

But WAHHH. Its unfair! Well, if you think its unfair then you and your children and your childrens' children and so on should work for no pay for a few hundred years, to be treated as animals, property.


Which centuries were those??

IIRC, slavery ended in 1865. The USA was founded in 1789. That looks like 76 years to me. :think:

Of course, hundreds of years make your case sound stronger. :think:

You know what - you find me one black person who suffered under slavery and I'll be the first person to give him a leg up. :chuckle:

[simply one]

Which centuries were those??

IIRC, slavery ended in 1865. The USA was founded in 1789. That looks like 76 years to me. :think:

Of course, hundreds of years make your case sound stronger. :think:

You know what - you find me one black person who suffered under slavery and I'll be the first person to give him a leg up. :chuckle:

76 Years to many.

Not to mention the 200 years of slavery, dating back to the founding of American colonies. Slavery imprinted itselves on the psyche of Americans long before the conception of the USA. The predjudices are deep rooted from almost 300 years of enslavement.

[Frank Ernest]

HUNDREDS OF YEARS OF FORCED LABOR. For centuries, blacks were forced to labor, without pay, and with no rights.

The prejudices strongly imprinted into the subconcious of Americans still exists today.

So, yes, I think after being treated as PROPERTY for centuries, and then over a hundred years more of segregation, leading to prejudices which still exist today, that blacks deserve to be given an extra foot up.

But WAHHH. Its unfair! Well, if you think its unfair then you and your children and your childrens' children and so on should work for no pay for a few hundred years, to be treated as animals, property.
Thanks for the confirmation that Affirmative Action is nothing more than racial revenge.

[BillyBob]

76 Years to many.

Not to mention the 200 years of slavery, dating back to the founding of American colonies. Slavery imprinted itselves on the psyche of Americans long before the conception of the USA. The predjudices are deep rooted from almost 300 years of enslavement.


Slavery has been around for millenia and is still being practiced in some countries. Instead of whining about the fact that the US had a brief period when slavery was legal, although extremely rare, you should proud that our ancestral countrymen abolished it 150 years ago!

Now, what I find most interesting is that you libs actually agree with my statement that blacks and whites are not equal and that blacks have a legal advantage over whites and it doesn't bother you. Yet you seem to be bothered by the fact that whites had a legal advantage over blacks at some point in our nation's history.

There is a word for that.....ummmmm.....oh yeah, Hypocrite!

[koban]

My great-great-great grandfather spent considerable of his own to raise a regiment and fight in the Civil War for the North.

And yet, when I go downtown and ask the homey's to reimburse me, they don't.

How come???

[BillyBob]

My family didn't even come to this country 'till the turn of the Century [1900] and when they did, they moved to Ohio, a slave-free Union State. I should be exempt from any Affirmative Action legislation that puts me at a disadvantage.

[koban]

no no no no no

I'll bet you still grew up white.

You have to feel guilty about that !!

[BillyBob]

Nope. :nono:

All the guilt is on the libs, I have made amends for any of my past indiscretions.

[Well, there was that one time........] :angel:

[koban]

Slavery has been around for millenia and is still being practiced in some countries. Instead of whining about the fact that the US had a brief period when slavery was legal, although extremely rare, you should proud that our ancestral countrymen abolished it 150 years ago!

Now, what I find most interesting is that you libs actually agree with my statement that blacks and whites are not equal and that blacks have a legal advantage over whites and it doesn't bother you. Yet you seem to be bothered by the fact that whites had a legal advantage over blacks at some point in our nation's history.

There is a word for that.....ummmmm.....oh yeah, Hypocrite!


There's others, too, like liberal and ones the filter won't allow.

[BillyBob]

Stupid Filter! :sozo2:

[simply one]

To tell you the truth, I don't really care about affirmative action. I think its good to get blacks out of poverty. And its good to conteract predjudices. But, other than that, it doesn't get me all hot and bothered.

Besides BB, you're already through college and doing fine. And, unless a college sent you a letter(way back when) saying that they specifically chose a black student who was less qualified over you, I can't see why you're all uptight about something that adresses a real need. The need for blacks to be brought out of poverty. Once enough people have become successful and the "ghetto" theme plays less of a role, plus other factors, blacks as a whole could achieve the "middle American
dream

[koban]

But there are more non-blacks below the poverty level than blacks ?? :confused:

Don't you want to help them?

[simply one]

But there are more non-blacks below the poverty level than blacks ?? :confused:

Don't you want to help them?

Sorry, forgot about America's growing Hispanic population :doh:

by statistics (http://www.plu.edu/~poverty/stats/home.html):

20% of America's hispanics are below the poverty level
23% of blacks are
6% of whites are

So, I grant you that there is a higher percentage TOTAL of nonblacks compared to blacks. But, out of curiousity, does affirmative action apply to poor Hispanics also?

[edited for soruce]

[kmoney]

AA is used for many groups, not just blacks.

[kmoney]

BB or Koban, Do you think AA never should have been implemented at all?

[koban]

Yes

[koban]

Sorry, forgot about America's growing Hispanic population :doh:

by statistics (http://www.plu.edu/~poverty/stats/home.html):

20% of America's hispanics are below the poverty level
23% of blacks are
6% of whites are

So, I grant you that there is a higher percentage TOTAL of nonblacks compared to blacks. But, out of curiousity, does affirmative action apply to poor Hispanics also?

[edited for soruce]



Will you grant me that there are more whites under the poverty level than blacks?

[simply one]

Will you grant me that there are more whites under the poverty level than blacks?

Show me the breakdown of the US population (with sources). Take 23% of blacks and 6% of whites. Then I'll grant it to you.

[edited for percentage]

[koban]

good grief! I did this before.

I'll do it again when I get back

[kmoney]

Yes
I think it's necessary, at least it was at one time. In a way I hate it because it is just reverse-discrimination, but I think it had it's place. Slavery was abolished in 1860's, but racial discrimination didn't end until much later. Our country was run by whites. AA was intended to me a temporary solution to help erase the huge gaps between white and blacks.

[kmoney]

Show me the breakdown of the US population (with sources). Take 23% of blacks and 6% of whites. Then I'll grant it to you.

[edited for percentage]
http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0762156.html

23% of 34,658 = 7971 (blacks)

6% of 211,460,626 = 12687638

Looks like more whites are in poverty.....

population numbers are from 2000 census

[kmoney]

I think the % should be the numbers that matter though. More whites may be in povery, but that should be expected because of the large population difference. There are also a lot more white people that are living WAY above the poverty level, like 6-figure income. Again, that should be expected because of the population differences. I think we should put focus on the %s

[koban]

http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0762156.html

23% of 34,658 = 7971 (blacks)

6% of 211,460,626 = 12687638

Looks like more whites are in poverty.....

population numbers are from 2000 census



34,658 can't be right

[koban]

From kmoney's source:
(2004 census data)


White 235,990,895 x 6% = 14,159,000


Black or African American 37,521,497 x 23% = 8,629,944


I don't see the validity of preferentially favoring 8 million people over 14 million people solely due to race. :think:

[kmoney]

34,658 can't be right
:doh: I totally cut off the last few digits. I wasn't paying attention at all

[kmoney]

From kmoney's source:
(2004 census data)


White 235,990,895 x 6% = 14,159,000


Black or African American 37,521,497 x 23% = 8,629,944


I don't see the validity of preferentially favoring 8 million people over 14 million people solely due to race. :think:
well I don't think AA is based on only poverty levels. They do look at income, but they aren't just concerned with income and jobs. They also look at college attendance.

AA helps many groups also, not just blacks. AA is designed to help women, other racial minorities, and even people like midgets. It isn't only a program to help blacks.

[koban]

well I don't think AA is based on only poverty levels. They do look at income, but they aren't just concerned with income and jobs. They also look at college attendance.

AA helps many groups also, not just blacks. AA is designed to help women, other racial minorities, and even people like midgets. It isn't only a program to help blacks.



All at the expense of qualified people who don't happen to share those characteristics. And with your (and my) tax dollars.

[BillyBob]

BB or Koban, Do you think AA never should have been implemented at all?

Nope. :nono:

You can't fix inequality with inequality.

[BillyBob]

To tell you the truth, I don't really care about affirmative action.

I only care about it enough to detest it.

I think its good to get blacks out of poverty.

If AA is the answer to getting blacks out of poverty, why are so many blacks still impoverished? :doh:

Besides, it's not the governments job to get anybody out of poverty. Free enterprise is the only real solution and it exists for blacks as much as for whites.

And its good to conteract predjudices.

Again, not the governments job.

But, other than that, it doesn't get me all hot and bothered.

No, but I hear that Beanieboy does. :flamer:



Besides BB, you're already through college and doing fine. And, unless a college sent you a letter(way back when) saying that they specifically chose a black student who was less qualified over you,

No college for me, I'm a self made man.


I can't see why you're all uptight about something that adresses a real need.

What need?

The need for blacks to be brought out of poverty.

Oh, we're back to that again. See above.

Once enough people have become successful and the "ghetto" theme plays less of a role, plus other factors, blacks as a whole could achieve the "middle American
dream

Plenty of them do right now, but it isn't because of AA, it is because they worked hard to become successful. Any system that rewards mediocraty and penalizes exellence is unAmerican. AA is such a system.

[koban]

Nope. :nono:

You can't fix inequality with inequality.


Funny - I answered yes.

I think we both meant the same thing. :think:

[kmoney]

All at the expense of qualified people who don't happen to share those characteristics. And with your (and my) tax dollars.
well, like I said I am for the most part against it, but I think it has produced some good.

[kmoney]

Nope. :nono:

You can't fix inequality with inequality.
I agree AA isn't the only way to fix it. Blacks have to take matters into their own hands as well.

[kmoney]

If AA is the answer to getting blacks out of poverty, why are so many blacks still impoverished?

Besides, it's not the governments job to get anybody out of poverty. Free enterprise is the only real solution and it exists for blacks as much as for whites.
That sounds good, but there was still severe prejudice. Blacks could try and still not get anywhere, AA was to help this.

[BillyBob]

That sounds good, but there was still severe prejudice.


So? Since when is it illegal for people to be prejudiced? I don't know how old you are K, but this PC crap that has infected our way of life is relatively new. As far as I'm concerned, Americans have the right to be bigots, racists and haters in general.



Blacks could try and still not get anywhere,

Says who?????? I'd rather be a black American than a white Russian any day! [Now I want a drink....] I mean that seriously. Blacks in the US have the same opportunities that whites do because of the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. In a free enterprise system, any person has the opportunity to be successful. Anyone who is not has only himself to blame.


AA was to help this.

Sorry my friend, but my answer to that is a resounding :cow:

[koban]

I think it was originally well intentioned, if ill-considered. It has become entrenched and has long since outlived it's usefullness.

[kmoney]

So? Since when is it illegal for people to be prejudiced? I don't know how old you are K, but this PC crap that has infected our way of life is relatively new. As far as I'm concerned, Americans have the right to be bigots, racists and haters in general.

I agree that PC has gotten too extreme. I hate PC. And prejudice isn't illegal. I'm not giving full support to AA. Reverse discrimination is wrong just like discrimination is wrong.

So you think nothing should have been done? The thing is I don't know how to help the situation with better means. For someone to get ahead someone has to be left behind.

Says who?????? I'd rather be a black American than a white Russian any day! [Now I want a drink....] I mean that seriously. Blacks in the US have the same opportunities that whites do because of the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. In a free enterprise system, any person has the opportunity to be successful. Anyone who is not has only himself to blame.
Unfortunately many employers don't really care if everyone has the same oppurtunties.

Sorry my friend, but my answer to that is a resounding :cow:
:chuckle:

[BillyBob]

I agree that PC has gotten too extreme. I hate PC. And prejudice isn't illegal. I'm not giving full support to AA. Reverse discrimination is wrong just like discrimination is wrong.

Especially when it is sponsored by the governemnt!


So you think nothing should have been done?

A lot was done. The slaves were freed, blacks were given the right to vote. All American citizens have the freedom guaranteed by the Constitution at their disposal. What more do they want???

The thing is I don't know how to help the situation with better means.


What could be better than freedom????


For someone to get ahead someone has to be left behind.

Says who????


Unfortunately many employers don't really care if everyone has the same oppurtunties.


And they shouldn't. The only thing an employer should be concerned with is can his employees do a good job and can they make him money.

Any person who relies on someone else to provide them with an opportunity is destined to fail. Make your own opportunities, take control of your own destiny, stop relying on others.

Words of wisdom from your Uncle BillyBob. :BillyBob:


:cheers:

[kmoney]

A lot was done. The slaves were freed, blacks were given the right to vote. All American citizens have the freedom guaranteed by the Constitution at their disposal. What more do they want???
They probably want to stop being discriminated against.

What could be better than freedom????

Says who????
When the government is doing it....

And they shouldn't. The only thing an employer should be concerned with is can his employees do a good job and can they make him money.
a problem is that people thought whites were automatically better.

Any person who relies on someone else to provide them with an opportunity is destined to fail. Make your own opportunities, take control of your own destiny, stop relying on others.
and that is another problem with AA, people are rewarded for doing nothing.

:cheers:
:cheers:

[BillyBob]

They probably want to stop being discriminated against.


And they achieve this by discriminating against others???? :confused:

[kmoney]

And they achieve this by discriminating against others???? :confused:
2 wrongs make a right...:duh:!

I agree with you, AA's reverse disc. is bad.

[Frank Ernest]

Demo:Commie: principle:

If two wrongs don't make a right, try three.

[David2]

does im--peach--ing mean, bring him to Georgia and giving him a good redneck whoopen?

:sinapisN: :sinapisN: :sinapisN:

[Delmar]

Nope. :nono:

You can't fix inequality with inequality.
:up:

[Frank Ernest]

Demo:Commie: principle:

All people are created equal. But, some are more equal than others.
(Thanks to "Animal Farm" & Orwell.)

[koban]

:mock: :skeptic:

[koban]

Had to have my daily.

:mock:SO

[koban]

Your turn Frank. :chuckle:

[Delmar]

Nope. :nono:

You can't fix inequality with inequality.
As a matter of fact it has been a while since I changed my signature.

[Frank Ernest]

Your turn Frank. :chuckle:
Ok. :mock::skeptic: & :mock::simpleton:

[koban]

and the universe is centered again.

[Frank Ernest]

:darwinsm:

[simply one]

and the universe is centered again.

If by centered, you mean somewhere off in the conservative netherworld, then right on:thumb:

FUN FACT Ronald Reagan's election platform was more moderate than that of many current democrats. He supported:
-self sufficient energy policy (unlike our current Middle East-dependence)
-recognized the need for welfare and especially for Social Security
-wanted to reduce the cost of government
-targeted "big government", something neither side (for better or for worse) does now

Reagan, the reknowned Rightie, was more moderate than many "Lefties" in modern politics. (source) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1980#Republican_Party_ nomination)

and now you know that :p

[koban]

[QUOTE=simply one]If by centered, you mean somewhere off in the conservative netherworld, then right on:thumb:

Finally! You're beginning to see the light.

[Frank Ernest]

If by centered, you mean somewhere off in the conservative netherworld, then right on:thumb:

FUN FACT Ronald Reagan's election platform was more moderate than that of many current democrats. He supported:
-self sufficient energy policy (unlike our current Middle East-dependence)
-recognized the need for welfare and especially for Social Security
-wanted to reduce the cost of government
-targeted "big government", something neither side (for better or for worse) does now

Reagan, the reknowned Rightie, was more moderate than many "Lefties" in modern politics. (source) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1980#Republican_Party_ nomination)

and now you know that :p
:darwinsm: Spare me. You :Commie:s hated Reagan's guts and vilified him every step of the way. Phonies.

[Knight]

:darwinsm: Spare me. You :Commie:s hated Reagan's guts and vilified him every step of the way. Phonies.:rotfl:

[simply one]

:darwinsm: Spare me. You :Commie:s hated Reagan's guts and vilified him every step of the way. Phonies.

Everything is relative. It just goes to prove how much more conservative, in general, that politics in the US have become. It's sad:(...so many lost sheep.

:crackup:

[simply one]

So, does anyone here have a viable idea on what to do about Iraq?

I mean, we should not have been there in the first place, but since we are:

Should US troops stay in Iraq, causing the insurgency to continue to grow and providing a recruting ground for international terrorism, in addition to the risk of civil war?

or Should US troops withdraw, and simply apply diplomatic pressure to Iraq, while heightening the risk of civil war in that country?

Its a bit of a CATCH 22. Opinions anyone?

[fool]

FUN FACT Ronald Reagan's election platform was more moderate than that of many current democrats. He supported:
-self sufficient energy policy (unlike our current Middle East-dependence)

Isn't that what GW is working towards when he says drill in the arctic?
Everybody has always said we should use less energy, I remember no president that said "no worries we'll just by more from the Arabs" wanting somthing and achieving it are two very different things.

-recognized the need for welfare and especially for Social Security

GW wants to fix soc. sec. so it will be there. And as far as welfare, have you seen how much dough he's dumped on the hurricane victims?

-wanted to reduce the cost of government

I'm sure everyone wants to reduce cost, the question is how to do it without missing somthing, like 20 highjackers.

-targeted "big government", something neither side (for better or for worse) does now

As recent events show, people aren't as good at taking care of themselves as they once were.

Reagan, the reknowned Rightie, was more moderate than many "Lefties" in modern politics. (source) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1980#Republican_Party_ nomination)

We could use a man like him again.

[fool]

Should US troops stay in Iraq, causing the insurgency to continue to grow and providing a recruting ground for international terrorism,
This question is like the cops saying "we gotta get outa here! there's to many bad guys".

[simply one]

Isn't that what GW is working towards when he says drill in the arctic?
Everybody has always said we should use less energy, I remember no president that said "no worries we'll just by more from the Arabs" wanting somthing and achieving it are two very different things.

Drilling in a national PRESERVE and destroying an ecosystem for selfish goals is NOT good, no matter the potential benefits (which in this case are not to big)
:doh:

There's *estimated* to be enough to to completely supply the US for one month to a year and a half (the range is wide because of lack of credible surveying). BUT irreversibly ruining an ecosystem for a small amount of our own GREED:greedy: is unnacceptable.

GW wants to fix soc. sec. so it will be there. And as far as welfare, have you seen how much dough he's dumped on the hurricane victims?

"FIX" = ruin, slash benefits, gamble investments

Its the presidents job to care for the governed! There was no way he could NOT respond to a disaster that destroyed a city. He personally has dumped barely any $$. And in comparison to the money spent halfway around the world in Iraq, its not much.

I'm sure everyone wants to reduce cost, the question is how to do it without missing somthing, like 20 highjackers.

Hmm... sure everyone wants to reduce the cost, eh? Then please explain why Bush has created the largest deficit in history through unneccessary spending, from tax cuts for the rich to pork barrel projects for his cronies to an invasion and a depression?

As recent events show, people aren't as good at taking care of themselves as they once were.

Recent events? Are you implying the hurricanes? Are you implying that everyone should be selfsufficient farmers? What has allowed the world to reach a state of civilization is the interdependedness of people and the specialization of jobs.

Maybe we should demolish your town and see how "good at taking care of yourself" you are...

[Frank Ernest]

Everything is relative. It just goes to prove how much more conservative, in general, that politics in the US have become. It's sad:(...so many lost sheep.

:crackup:
:darwinsm: :cry::baby:

[death2impiety]

So...why should Bush be impeached?

[koban]

'Cause Skreppie wants him to be !!! :baby:

[Frank Ernest]

Because -- he's THERE!

[Skeptic]

So...why should Bush be impeached? How much of this thread have you read?

[Zimfan]

How much of this thread have you read?

Wow, you're up late(or early).

[koban]

Morning Frank!

[Skeptic]

Why Bush Is Unimpeachable
Cracks Appear in the Constitution (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1026-26.htm)

[Zimfan]

ko:blabla:! :cheers:, or, more accurately in my case, :MrCoffee: .

[koban]

Skreppie's back!!!

Hi Skreppie!!!!!

In honor of your return, may I offer the following:























:mock::skeptic::dog::sibbie: :mock::skeptic::dog::sibbie: :mock::skeptic::dog::sibbie: :mock::skeptic::dog::sibbie: :mock::skeptic::dog::sibbie: :mock::skeptic::dog::sibbie: :mock::skeptic::dog::sibbie: :mock::skeptic::dog::sibbie: :mock::skeptic::dog::sibbie: :mock::skeptic::dog::sibbie: :mock::skeptic::dog::sibbie: :mock::skeptic::dog::sibbie:

[koban]

Stupid formatting! :madmad:


Go with the basics, I guess.

:mock::skeptic:

[Frank Ernest]

Yo, koban! :thumb:

[koban]

Later Frank - I'm off to bed!

[Frank Ernest]

Night-night!

[simply one]

Ko:blabla: and Frankie:dunce: seem to be enjoying themselves. Thats wonderful.

So, what happened to the Perfectly-Qualified Supreme Court Nominee?

[koban]

:mock: SO :dog: :sibbie:

[BillyBob]

She will be replaced with a more Conservative nominee.

You commies are going to regret losing elections for the past 10 years! :devil:

[koban]

There's plenty of open threads on Miers.

Leave our :spam: thread alone!

[BillyBob]

Sorry! :o

[simply one]

She will be replaced with a more Conservative nominee.

You commies are going to regret losing elections for the past 10 years! :devil:

By elections, you must not mean PRESIDENTIAL, cause we only lost two. The decade of Clinton and a thriving America followed by the decade of Bush and ruinous policy plus 9/11.

If an UBERconservative is nominated, I will be VERY pissed if the Democrats dont filibuster.

[koban]

Not you!

SO

[koban]

By elections, you must not mean PRESIDENTIAL, cause we only lost two. The decade of Clinton and a thriving America followed by the decade of Bush and ruinous policy plus 9/11.

If an UBERconservative is nominated, I will be VERY pissed if the Democrats dont filibuster.




:baby:

[simply one]

What's in :spam:?

let me rephrase that - What ISN'T in :spam:?

[BillyBob]

By elections, you must not mean PRESIDENTIAL, cause we only lost two. The decade of Clinton and a thriving America followed by the decade of Bush and ruinous policy plus 9/11.

Republicans have been winning Congressional seats for over 10 years.

I find it humorous that you support the Clinton/Gore Recession. :kookoo:

Thankfully, GW pulled us out of it with Tax cuts.



If an UBERconservative is nominated, I will be VERY pissed if the Democrats dont filibuster.

And I will be very surprised if the Republican MAJORITY doesn't enact the 'Nuclear Option'. :devil:

[simply one]

:baby:

:loser:

:nananana:

Goodnight!!

post 500...

[koban]

:spam:

All the healthy goodness that can be synthetically manufactured!!

[simply one]

:idea:

how could I ever have forgotten?!

bye:wave:

[Frank Ernest]

By elections, you must not mean PRESIDENTIAL, cause we only lost two. The decade of Clinton and a thriving America followed by the decade of Bush and ruinous policy plus 9/11.
:darwinsm: HEY! A demo:Commie: finally admitted Gore lost in 2000!

If an UBERconservative is nominated, I will be VERY pissed if the Democrats dont filibuster.
I won't be nominated, so your fears are groundless. :thumb:

:mock::simpleton:

[koban]

Hey Frank!

Tag - you're "it"

I'm off to bed.

[Frank Ernest]

:darwinsm: Alrighty, koban! :thumb: I'm on it.

[Delmar]

:darwinsm: HEY! A demo:Commie: finally admitted Gore lost in 2000!

I won't be nominated, so your fears are groundless. :thumb:

:mock::simpleton:
I nominate Frank Ernest. Is there a second?

[koban]

I second it!

[koban]

All opposed?

[koban]

None heard!

Motion carried!

Congratulations Frank!

[Frank Ernest]

:darwinsm: I await the reports of demo:Commie:s flinging themselves from rooftops.

[BillyBob]

Says the guy with over 1300 negative points! :darwinsm:


What's the record?


You'll have to check in every day and find out! :darwinsm:

[Skeptic]

-- IRAQ CHECK --

Pre-war meaningful ties with al-Qaeda: 0
Pre-war evidence of WMD: 0
WMDs found in Iraq: 0
Imminent threats from Iraq: 0
Justifiable reasons for invading Iraq: 0

Estimated overall strength of insurgency (June '05): 15,000 - 20,000
Estimated number of foreign fighters in insurgency (June '05): 750 - 1000
Foreign fighters in detainee prison population (Jan 21, '05): 224
Source (http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/indexarchive.htm)

Number of acts of international terrorism in 2004: 651
this is the highest yearly total since 1987.
Source (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html), source (http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/nctc2004.pdf)

U.S. troops unnecessarily dead: 2014
U.S. troops unnecessarily wounded: 15,353
Source (http://icasualties.org/oif/), source (http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/)

Unnecessary deaths of innocent men, women and children:
At least 26,732 - probably far greater!
At least 42,500 wounded (thru March '05) - probably far greater!
Source (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr12.php)

U.S. government officials held responsible for unnecessary war deaths in Iraq: 0

Who voted for Iraq's constitution? Not Sunnis!
Who disproportionately dominates Iraq's army & police? Shiites & Kurds.
Iraqi Freedom and Democracy: No, ... not yet!

[koban]

-- SKEPTIC DIAPER CHECK --

Meaningful reasons to impeach Bush: 0
Evidence of impeachable offenses: 0
Impeachable offenses: 0
Imminent impeachable offenses: 0
Justifiable reasons for impeaching Bush: 0

Estimated overall strength of :skeptic:s case for impeaching Bush: 0
Estimated number of provable impeachable offenses: 0
Number of times Skreppie's failed his toilet training today: 224

Number of acts of impeachable offenses in 2004: 0
this is the highest yearly total since 1987. :darwinsm:

U.S. troops forced to serve with a gun to their head: 0
Skreppie's understanding of the US Military: -15,353


Number of times :skeptic:s shown himself to be a :Commie::
At least 26,732 - probably far greater!
At least 42,500 diaper changes for Skreppie - probably far greater!


U.S. government officials held responsible for unnecessary war deaths in Iraq: 0 :darwinsm:

Who voted for Iraq's constitution? Not Skreppie
Who disproportionately skews the war on terrorism to try to support his own anti-Bush agenda? Skreppie
Skreppie's evidence of impeachable offenses: No, ... not yet!

Reasons to impeach Bush: Because I don't like him!!! :baby:





:mock: :skeptic:

[Army of One]

:rotfl:

[wholearmor]

I think Bush should be impeached for being a pro-abort.

[Skeptic]

-- SKEPTIC DIAPER CHECK -- :yawn:

All you seem to be capable of is demonizing the messenger, while ignoring the message.

Too bad that's the best you can do.

:mock: ko:blabla:

[Skeptic]

Published on Sunday, October 30, 2005 by TomDispatch.com
The White House Criminal Conspiracy (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1030-25.htm)
by Elizabeth de la Vega (former federal prosecutor)

[koban]

:baby:

Waaaaaaa - nobody's listening to me!!!

Waaaaaaa- nobody's agreeing with me!!!

Waaaaaaa- nobody's impeaching Bush!!!!

:baby:





:mock: :skeptic:

[koban]

:yawn:

All you seem to be capable of is demonizing the messenger, while ignoring the message.

Too bad that's the best you can do.

:mock: ko:blabla:


Serious answer:

Skeptic, if you were walking down the street wearing flippers, carrying a rubber chicken under each armpit and banging a brick against your head, screaming that the giant aliens from Mars were trying to probe you again with carrots, I'd ignore your message.

Show me the difference between that and what you've been doing on this thread. :think:

[Frank Ernest]

Serious answer:

Skeptic, if you were walking down the street wearing flippers, carrying a rubber chicken under each armpit and banging a brick against your head, screaming that the giant aliens from Mars were trying to probe you again with carrots, I'd ignore your message.

Show me the difference between that and what you've been doing on this thread. :think:
I just gotta.

:darwinsm: :mock::skeptic:

[Skeptic]

Serious answer:

Skeptic, if you were walking down the street wearing flippers, carrying a rubber chicken under each armpit and banging a brick against your head, screaming that the giant aliens from Mars were trying to probe you again with carrots, I'd ignore your message.

Show me the difference between that and what you've been doing on this thread. This is not a serious answer.

I suspect you don't know how to give one.

:mock: ko:blabla:

[koban]

Serious answer:

:skeptic: = :flamer: :Commie:

[Skeptic]

Serious answer:

:skeptic: = :flamer: :Commie: Further evidence you're incapable of a serious answer.

:mock: ko:blabla:

[koban]

Whaddaya expect, :loser: ? You've already got 260 pages of refutation. Nobody here agrees with your biased BS. Take a hike and quit :baby:

[BillyBob]

:darwinsm:

:mock: :skeptic:

[MISTY7]

What Are the Symptoms of LEMS?
The first symptoms are usually leg weakness and difficulty walking. Oculobulbar weakness (affecting the muscles of the eyes, face and throat) may occur later, causing ptosis, speech impairment and swallowing problems. Unlike weakness in MG, weakness in LEMS temporarily improves after exertion. (It’s thought that, with repeated activity, calcium gradually builds up in the nerve cells, increasing the amount of ACh released.)

Because ACh regulates many bodily functions, LEMS sometimes causes autonomic (involuntary) symptoms such as dry mouth, constipation, impotence and bladder urgency.

[MISTY7]

Why don't all the Christians Quit and leave KOBAN to play with himself.

[koban]

What Are the Symptoms of LEMS?
The first symptoms are usually leg weakness and difficulty walking. Oculobulbar weakness (affecting the muscles of the eyes, face and throat) may occur later, causing ptosis, speech impairment and swallowing problems. Unlike weakness in MG, weakness in LEMS temporarily improves after exertion. (It’s thought that, with repeated activity, calcium gradually builds up in the nerve cells, increasing the amount of ACh released.)

Because ACh regulates many bodily functions, LEMS sometimes causes autonomic (involuntary) symptoms such as dry mouth, constipation, impotence and bladder urgency.



The diagnosis of Lambert-Eaton syndrome (LEMS) is based on the clinical characteristics and the EMG findings, both of which differ from myasthenia gravis (MG) in most patients. Most patients with LEMS also have antibodies in the blood that are different from those in MG.

[koban]

Why don't all the Christians Quit and leave KOBAN to play with himself.


:shocked:

Keep your sick fantasies to yourself! :sibbie:

[BillyBob]

:shocked:

[drbrumley]

I think Bush should be impeached for being a pro-abort.
I'll second that.

[Frank Ernest]

:darwinsm: :yawn:

[koban]

I think Bush should be impeached for having that crappy Texas accent.

[Frank Ernest]

I think Bush should be impeached for having that crappy Texas accent.
:shocked: Hey! My wife's family are all Texans from way back. Don't you be dissin' my fambly! :chuckle:

[koban]

Sorry man, it just grates. :D

Besides, it was the first stupid thing I could think of to match WA and doc. :devil:

[Frank Ernest]

Sorry man, it just grates. :D

Besides, it was the first stupid thing I could think of to match WA and doc. :devil:
In that case, good pick! :thumb:

[Skeptic]

You've already got 260 pages of refutation. Your idea of refutation is demonizing the messenger.

My positions in this thread continue to be vindicated by the evidence.

A majority of Americans are beginning to share similar views.

Nobody here agrees with your biased BS. My bias is evidence based.

Yours, on the other hand, is faith based. :down:

I have read many posts in this thread by those who agree with me. So much for your unfounded claim that nobody here agrees with me. What you meant to say is that none of the right-wing faith-based fundie fanatics here agree with me.

:mock: ko:blabla:

[BillyBob]

My positions in this thread continue to be vindicated by the evidence.




:darwinsm:

[Frank Ernest]

Your idea of refutation is demonizing the messenger.

My positions in this thread continue to be vindicated by the evidence.

A majority of Americans are beginning to share similar views.

My bias is evidence based.

Yours, on the other hand, is faith based. :down:

I have read many posts in this thread by those who agree with me. So much for your unfounded claim that nobody here agrees with me. What you meant to say is that none of the right-wing faith-based fundie fanatics here agree with me.

:mock: ko:blabla:
:darwinsm: Do I hear the "Twilight Zone" theme in the background?

[Skeptic]

:darwinsm: Your laughter, on the other hand, does nothing to vindicate your uninformed right-wing war-mongering position. It merely shows others that you are stubbornly holding on to refuted minority views.

:mock: :BillyBob:

Now that the neocon hoodwinking of Congress and the American people has been significantly undone by the facts, it's too bad we can't redo the 2004 elections tomorrow. Bush and his neocon buddies would be outta here!!

[BillyBob]

Your laughter, on the other hand, does nothing to vindicate your uninformed right-wing war-mongering position. It merely shows others that you are stubbornly holding on to refuted minority views.

:mock: :BillyBob:

Now that the neocon hoodwinking of Congress and the American people has been significantly undone by the facts, it's too bad we can't redo the 2004 elections tomorrow. Bush and his neocon buddies would be outta here!!


:darwinsm:

[Skeptic]

:mock: :BillyBob:

[drbrumley]

Your laughter, on the other hand, does nothing to vindicate your uninformed right-wing war-mongering position. It merely shows others that you are stubbornly holding on to refuted minority views.

:mock: :BillyBob:

Now that the neocon hoodwinking of Congress and the American people has been significantly undone by the facts, it's too bad we can't redo the 2004 elections tomorrow. Bush and his neocon buddies would be outta here!!
Petrouka :up:
BUSH :down:
Kerry :down:

[drbrumley]

Skeptic, I wouldn't be to proud of Commie Kerry either.

[MISTY7]

KOBAN isn't in the Bible so how can you believe any thing that he says.

[ebenz47037]

I think MISTY7's been licking the bong when everyone's done.

[Frank Ernest]

:mock:MISTY7

[koban]

Finally!! A new direction to :skeptic: 's thread!!


Thanks Omega! You are good for something!

[simply one]

Skeptic, I wouldn't be to proud of Commie Kerry either.

dr, the entire political spectrum has swung to the right over the past 1-2 decades. Kerry is onot even close to a Communist. Saying that is baseless slander, which truly does not give any credit to your argument. Unless you prove otherwise, your comment was the same as most of the Rightie comments on this thread: pointless, illogical childishness.

[koban]

:mock: so

[simply one]

Something I wonder about...

PreInvasion Fear-Mongering...December 9, 2001 on Meet the Press (long before the 9/11 Report)

Russert: A couple of articles have appeared which I want to get you to react to. The first: "The Czech interior minister said today that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with Mohammed Atta, one of the ringleaders of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, just five months before the synchronized hijackings and mass killings were carried out."...

Cheney: Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that - it's been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior offical of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack."

[emphasis mine...also note the VP's knowledge of the modern world: Czechoslovakia is not a country anymore; there's the Czech Republic and Slovakia]

Then the 9/11 Report was published...

The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the Unitied States.
from page 66 of the 9/11 Report [emphasis mine]

But wait, Bush, during his MISSION ACCOMPLISHED address said:

The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more.
In these 19 months that changed the world, our actions have been focused and deliberate and proportionate to the offense. We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th -- the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got.

These statements are simply not true. The BiPartisan 9/11 committee spent thousands of work hours poring over reports and sources, and found that Iraq had no operational relationship with al Qaeda, that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and that the most common ground between the secular facism of Saddam and the religious extremism of al Qaeda was a common hatred for America.

After the 9/11 Report was published and the facts came out, did Bush Administration officials apologize for lying to Americans? Let's see what Cheney said on CNBC's Capital Report, 3 days after the 9/11 Report came out...

Borger: Well, let's get to Mohammed Atta for a minute because you mentioned him as well. You have siad in the past that it was, quote, "pretty well-confirmed" [see above]

Cheney: No, I never said that.

Borger: Okay.

Cheney: I never said that.

Borger: I think that is...

Cheney: Absolutely not. What I said was the Czech intelligence service reported after 9/11 that Atta had been in Prague on April 9 of 2001, where he allegedly met with an Iraqi intelligence official. We have never been able to confirm that nor have we been able to knock it down, we just don't know.

So, instead of honestly admitting a mistake, Vice President Cheney denies that he ever said that Atta met with an Iraqi official. Cheney lies openly to the American people on a national news station.

The actions of this Administration regarding the non-existant link between Iraq and 9/11 is yet another example of the dishonesty and incompetence under GW Bush. There is no link between 9/11 and Iraq, yet to this day, Bush and his officials have failed to apologize for the outrageous and untrue claims that they made throughout the leadup to the Iraq Invasion.

[simply one]

:mock: so

Do try to make an even slightly intelligent response sometime. Unless thinking hurts your brain too much :dunce:...in which case, it would be obvious why you're a Rightie :kookoo:

[simply one]

:think:

Iraq and 9/11 Link? NOPE :readthis:

The only link is in the lies and fear-mongering of the Bush Administration.

[simply one]

KOBAN isn't in the Bible so how can you believe any thing that he says.

I always thought that the Book Of Ko:blabla: was the one when Jesus swallowed the puzzle piece and the man in the yellow suit had to take him to the hospital...

[BillyBob]

:cow:

[simply one]

:cow:


:idea:

You know, I never thought of it that way. Thank you BillyBob for your deep, valuable input on this issue.



I glad that you can brush of the deaths of 30,000+ Iraqis and 2000+ US soldiers with a simple :cow:

[koban]

:baby:





:darwinsm:

[Skeptic]

-- IRAQ CHECK --

Pre-war meaningful ties with al-Qaeda: 0
Pre-war evidence of WMD: 0
WMDs found in Iraq: 0
Imminent threats from Iraq: 0
Justifiable reasons for invading Iraq: 0

Estimated overall strength of insurgency (June '05): 15,000 - 20,000
Estimated number of foreign fighters in insurgency (June '05): 750 - 1000
Foreign fighters in detainee prison population (Jan 21, '05): 224
Source (http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/indexarchive.htm)

Number of acts of international terrorism in 2004: 651
this is the highest yearly total since 1987.
Bush's unnecessary invasion dramatically increased terrorism!
Source (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html), source (http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/nctc2004.pdf)

U.S. troops unnecessarily dead: 2,031
U.S. troops unnecessarily wounded: 15,353
Source (http://icasualties.org/oif/), source (http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/)

Unnecessary deaths of innocent men, women and children:
At least 26,797 - probably far greater!
At least 42,500 wounded (thru March '05) - probably far greater!
Source (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr12.php)

U.S. government officials held responsible for unnecessary war deaths in Iraq: 0

Who voted for Iraq's constitution? Not Sunnis!
Who disproportionately dominates Iraq's army & police? Shiites & Kurds.
Iraqi Freedom and Democracy: No, ... not yet!

[koban]

-- SKEPTIC DIAPER CHECK --

Meaningful reasons to impeach Bush: 0
Evidence of impeachable offenses: 0
Impeachable offenses: 0
Imminent impeachable offenses: 0
Justifiable reasons for impeaching Bush: 0

Estimated overall strength of :skeptic:s case for impeaching Bush: 0
Estimated number of provable impeachable offenses: 0
Number of times Skreppie's failed his toilet training today: 224

Number of acts of impeachable offenses in 2004: 0
this is the highest yearly total since 1987. :darwinsm:

U.S. troops forced to serve with a gun to their head: 0
Skreppie's understanding of the US Military: -15,353


Number of times :skeptic:s shown himself to be a :Commie::
At least 26,732 - probably far greater!
At least 42,500 diaper changes for Skreppie - probably far greater!


U.S. government officials held responsible for unnecessary war deaths in Iraq: 0 :darwinsm:

Who voted for Iraq's constitution? Not Skreppie
Who disproportionately skews the war on terrorism to try to support his own anti-Bush agenda? Skreppie
Skreppie's evidence of impeachable offenses: No, ... not yet!

Reasons to impeach Bush: Because I don't like him!!! :baby:





:mock: :skeptic:

[Skeptic]

Carter: White House Misled U.S. on Iraq (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051102/ap_on_re_us/carter_iraq;_ylt=Akz_liuAYeBAO9CsnrGFi_as0NUE;_ylu =X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-)

[BillyBob]

Now we know you are desperate when you commies resort to quoting Carter! :darwinsm:

[simply one]

:mock: :skeptic:

1. In the amount of time it took you to alter all that, you could have come up with a decent intellectual response. Koban, you have essentially turned this thread into Truth vs. Spam, with yourself as the leader of the Spamming.

2. Reread some of the things you said. I mean, come on:

Skreppie's understanding of the US Military: -15,353

That does not even make sense. -15,353 WHAT? brain cells? marshmellows? Labels!!!

3...the number of smilies it takes to sum up the contents of your posts in this thread :baby::spam::dunce:

Come on Koban, suprise everyone! Use the gray matter between your ears!

[koban]

1. In the amount of time it took you to alter all that, you could have come up with a decent intellectual response. Koban, you have essentially turned this thread into Truth vs. Spam, with yourself as the leader of the Spamming.

2. Reread some of the things you said. I mean, come on:



That does not even make sense. -15,353 WHAT? brain cells? marshmellows? Labels!!!

3...the number of smilies it takes to sum up the contents of your posts in this thread :baby::spam::dunce:

Come on Koban, suprise everyone! Use the gray matter between your ears!




:darwinsm:

:mock: so

you're not worth the bother

[Skeptic]

Come on Koban, suprise everyone! Use the gray matter between your ears! The regular Radical Righties in this thread have given up any attempt at meaningful debate on the issue of Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq. All they are about now is simply demonizing the messenger, while ignoring the message.

They could care less that a majority of Americas now think the invasion was a bad idea.

They could care less that a majority of Americas now oppose the war.

They could care less that Bush & Co. failed to provide any hard pre-war evidence that Iraq posed a real threat.

They could care less that Bush's own inspectors failed to fine any evidence that Iraq had WMD or active WMD programs in the months leading up to Bush's invasion.

They could care less that no clear evidence has been found of meaningful pre-war ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

They could care less that Bush's invasion of Iraq resulted in the highest level of international terrorism since Reagan was President.

They could care less that tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children have died as a result of Bush's unnecessary invasion and occupation.

They could care less that over 2,000 of our brave troops have unnecessarily died in Iraq in a misguided war based on false pretenses.

All the Righties care about now is to discredit anyone who disagrees with them, not by rational dialog and analysis of the evidence, but by any other means possible that distracts from the issue. For them, the ends justify the means. For them, winning counts more than how they play the game.

So, for your own mental health, I suggest that you stop hoping that the Righties in this thread are going to change their demonizing tactics any time soon.

Keep posting what you know is factual and ethical. Let the Righties wallow in their disdain for anything critical of Bush's unnecessary and immoral war.

[koban]

The regular Radical Righties in this thread have given up any attempt at meaningful debate on the issue of Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq. All they are about now is simply demonizing the messenger, while ignoring the message.

Yep, that's because you're carrying a message that's been refuted and rejected for what, some large fraction of 3951 posts?

They could care less that a majority of Americas now think the invasion was a bad idea.

You going by popular opinion now Skreppie?

:mock: Skreppie

They could care less that a majority of Americas now oppose the war.

Now you care about popular opinion?

:mock: Skreppie

They could care less that Bush & Co. failed to provide any hard pre-war evidence that Iraq posed a real threat.

Gee, it convinced a lot of people pre-war. :think:

Maybe they should have consulted with Skreppie first.

:mock: Skreppie

They could care less that Bush's own inspectors failed to fine any evidence that Iraq had WMD or active WMD programs in the months leading up to Bush's invasion.

Are you claiming that Iraq didn't have WMD??? (damn - I wish we had a laughing-til-you-puke-your-lungs-out smilie)

:mock: Skreppie

They could care less that no clear evidence has been found of meaningful pre-war ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

What do you expect? Secret decoder rings that say "to Ossama - your love slave Saddam" ? :darwinsm:

:mock: Skreppie

They could care less that Bush's invasion of Iraq resulted in the highest level of international terrorism since Reagan was President.

Is it Bush's responsibility to control international terrorism???

What are the figures on terrorist acts within the US?? :think:

:mock: Skreppie

They could care less that tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children have died as a result of Bush's unnecessary invasion and occupation.

Point 1: Uncaring? I think not!

Point 2: Unnecessary? Ask those who are trying to create something unheard of in that region.

Point 3: :mock: Skreppie

They could care less that over 2,000 of our brave troops have unnecessarily died in Iraq in a misguided war based on false pretenses.

Point 1: Care less? no

Point 2: Unnecessarily? I'll leave that up to the troops that remain. Show me some sort of data supporting the belief that a majority of the US troops in the region feel that their efforts are in vain.

Point 3: Misguided? I'll leave this one up to the beneficiaries of our efforts. Show me some sort of data showing that the general Iraqi public would rather be under the Hussein regime.

Point 4: False pretenses? This has been refuted too many times to bother with.

Point 5: :mock: Skreppie

All the Righties care about now is to discredit anyone who disagrees with them, not by rational dialog and analysis of the evidence, but by any other means possible that distracts from the issue. For them, the ends justify the means. For them, winning counts more than how they play the game.

Ya know, that's what your mother said last night, while the cops were pulling her in for soliciting! :darwinsm:

Of course, you weren't there to get her call and post her bail, since you were too busy at your Young American Communists meeeting. (I meant Young Gay Pro-Abortion Anti-Christian American Communists meeting :doh: )

So, for your own mental health, I suggest that you stop hoping that the Righties in this thread are going to change their demonizing tactics any time soon.

If you're talking to yourself, I think it's too late for your mental health. :darwinsm:

Keep posting what you know is factual and ethical.

Holy cow, he is talking to himself! :doh:

Get the nets, boys! :darwinsm:

Let the Righties wallow in their disdain for anything critical of Bush's unnecessary and immoral war.

While you enjoy the safest America in the past four years. :rolleyes:





Now, listen Bub!

You've taken me away from my SP job for what, 36 minutes? :sozo2:

Next time SO complains about my level of response to this ridiculous thread, have him grab his ankles and offer him a carrot for me, OK?

[Frank Ernest]

The regular Radical Righties in this thread have given up any attempt at meaningful debate on the issue of Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq. All they are about now is simply demonizing the messenger, while ignoring the message.

They could care less that a majority of Americas now think the invasion was a bad idea.

They could care less that a majority of Americas now oppose the war.

They could care less that Bush & Co. failed to provide any hard pre-war evidence that Iraq posed a real threat.

They could care less that Bush's own inspectors failed to fine any evidence that Iraq had WMD or active WMD programs in the months leading up to Bush's invasion.

They could care less that no clear evidence has been found of meaningful pre-war ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

They could care less that Bush's invasion of Iraq resulted in the highest level of international terrorism since Reagan was President.

They could care less that tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children have died as a result of Bush's unnecessary invasion and occupation.

They could care less that over 2,000 of our brave troops have unnecessarily died in Iraq in a misguided war based on false pretenses.

All the Righties care about now is to discredit anyone who disagrees with them, not by rational dialog and analysis of the evidence, but by any other means possible that distracts from the issue. For them, the ends justify the means. For them, winning counts more than how they play the game.

So, for your own mental health, I suggest that you stop hoping that the Righties in this thread are going to change their demonizing tactics any time soon.

Keep posting what you know is factual and ethical. Let the Righties wallow in their disdain for anything critical of Bush's unnecessary and immoral war.
:yawn:

[Frank Ernest]

Sent to me from a friend:

Here is a Quote from Winston Churchill that made me think about our situation today in Iraq. It still applies if I switch from the youth of Germany, Japan and Italy with youth from Iraq, Iran, Syria and Palestine.

Dec. 26, 1941 - speaking of the Allies' enemies during World War II in a speech to the United States Congress:

"For the best part of twenty years the youth of Britain and America have been taught that war was evil, which is true, and that it would never come again, which has been proved false. For the best part of twenty years, the youth of Germany, of Japan and Italy, have been taught that aggressive war is the noblest duty of the citizen and that it should be begun as soon as the necessary weapons and organization have been made. We have performed the duties and tasks of peace. They have plotted and planned for war. This naturally has placed us, in Britain, and now places you in the United States at a disadvantage which only time, courage and untiring exertion can correct. "

-- Sir Winston Churchill

[koban]

Sent to me from a friend:

Here is a Quote from Winston Churchill that made me think about our situation today in Iraq. It still applies if I switch from the youth of Germany, Japan and Italy with youth from Iraq, Iran, Syria and Palestine.

Dec. 26, 1941 - speaking of the Allies' enemies during World War II in a speech to the United States Congress:

"For the best part of twenty years the youth of Britain and America have been taught that war was evil, which is true, and that it would never come again, which has been proved false. For the best part of twenty years, the youth of Germany, of Japan and Italy, have been taught that aggressive war is the noblest duty of the citizen and that it should be begun as soon as the necessary weapons and organization have been made. We have performed the duties and tasks of peace. They have plotted and planned for war. This naturally has placed us, in Britain, and now places you in the United States at a disadvantage which only time, courage and untiring exertion can correct. "

-- Sir Winston Churchill


A kinsman of mine!

[Delmar]

The regular Radical Righties in this thread have given up any attempt at meaningful debate on the issue of Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq. All they are about now is simply demonizing the messenger, while ignoring the message.

They could care less that a majority of Americas now think the invasion was a bad idea.

They could care less that a majority of Americas now oppose the war.

They could care less that Bush & Co. failed to provide any hard pre-war evidence that Iraq posed a real threat.

They could care less that Bush's own inspectors failed to fine any evidence that Iraq had WMD or active WMD programs in the months leading up to Bush's invasion.

They could care less that no clear evidence has been found of meaningful pre-war ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

They could care less that Bush's invasion of Iraq resulted in the highest level of international terrorism since Reagan was President.

They could care less that tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children have died as a result of Bush's unnecessary invasion and occupation.

They could care less that over 2,000 of our brave troops have unnecessarily died in Iraq in a misguided war based on false pretenses.

All the Righties care about now is to discredit anyone who disagrees with them, not by rational dialog and analysis of the evidence, but by any other means possible that distracts from the issue. For them, the ends justify the means. For them, winning counts more than how they play the game.

So, for your own mental health, I suggest that you stop hoping that the Righties in this thread are going to change their demonizing tactics any time soon.

Keep posting what you know is factual and ethical. Let the Righties wallow in their disdain for anything critical of Bush's unnecessary and immoral war.
I don't know if you have noticed but we are not at war with the current government of Iraq!

[Frank Ernest]

I don't know if you have noticed but we are not at war with the current government of Iraq!
He's still living in the days of his glorious hero, Saddam Hussein. Or Ho Chih Minh -- take your pick.

[Skeptic]

Yep, that's because you're carrying a message that's been refuted and rejected for what, some large fraction of 3951 posts? The message has been rejected, but not refuted.

Now you care about popular opinion? Popular opinion was shaped (hoodwinked) by this Administration to get us into war.

Now, popular opinion may very well help get us out of an unnecessary and misguided war, considering that the truth about the hoodwinking is becoming known by the American people.

Gee, it convinced a lot of people pre-war. The hoodwinking by the White House/Pentagon/CIA war mongers was quite effective, while it lasted. Too bad for them that the truth eventually comes out.

Are you claiming that Iraq didn't have WMD??? No one disputes that Iraq had WMD prior to 1991. The question is did Iraq have WMD in the months leading up to Bush's invasion in March 2003, as Bush and his buddies claimed. Bush was unable to provide hard evidence that Iraq possessed WMD, when he decided to invade Iraq. It is wrong to order a massive military invasion of another country (killing thousands of innocent people in the process) based on mere suspicions of a threat.

What do you expect? Secret decoder rings that say "to Ossama - your love slave Saddam" ? I expect solid evidence of a meaningful operational relationship, before risking the lives of many thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children!

Is it Bush's responsibility to control international terrorism??? It is Bush's responsibility to at least not do anything that is going to dramatically increase international terrorism! :doh:

What are the figures on terrorist acts within the US?? Attacks by international terrorists within the U.S. have always been rare. It is no surprise that there have been few terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11. We did a pretty good job of preventing them before 9/11, and 9/11 has resulted in the patching up of other security issues. So, the fact that there has been no major terrorist attack within the U.S. since 9/11 is no argument Bush has made us more safe.

Considering the dramatic increase in international terrorism resulting from Bush's unnecessary invasion and occupation of Iraq, Bush has actually increased the risk of more terrorist attacks against the U.S. It makes sense that the fewer global terrorist attacks there are, the less likely one will happen at home.

Uncaring? I think not! It appears so.

Unnecessary? Ask those who are trying to create something unheard of in that region. Those who are fighting over there are merely doing their duty. They are not the policy makers. If the President had told them it was unnecessary, they would not have fought.

There are many troops in Iraq, and other policy and military experts, who do think invading them was unnecessary. But, thanks to the hoodwinking they received before and after enlisting, I suspect a majority of our troops continue to be misguided.

Care less? no Your support for Bush's unnecessary invasion and occupation suggests otherwise.

Unnecessarily? I'll leave that up to the troops that remain. It is not up to the troops to decide the necessity of a war. They are just doing what they are told. Necessity is determined by the policy makers back home. And our policy makers have determined wrongly!

Show me some sort of data supporting the belief that a majority of the US troops in the region feel that their efforts are in vain. Irrelevant.

Misguided? I'll leave this one up to the beneficiaries of our efforts. The ends do not justify the means.

Show me some sort of data showing that the general Iraqi public would rather be under the Hussein regime. Of course, a majority of Iraqi people do not want to be under Saddam. But a majority of the Iraqi people want the U.S. out of their country!

Should the U.S. invade every country that is oppressed by a brutal dictator? Of course not. There are other ways of dealing with dictators who pose no threat to the U.S. or other countries. Ousting dictators by invading their countries, which necessarily results in the killing of many thousands of innocent people, destabilizes the region. and which results in civil war, is not a very smart or ethical thing to do.

False pretenses? This has been refuted too many times to bother with. :rotfl:

Refuted? Hardly. If it has been so soundly refuted, why is it that Congress is investigating this issue? Why is it that the opinion of a majority of Americans has shifted against your position, not closer to it?

Please briefly summarize the so-called "refutations" of which you speak. (this ought to be entertaining)

[Delmar]

Popular opinion was shaped (hoodwinked) by this Administration to get us into war.
Apparently you believe that Hillary Clinton was convinced that Saddam had WMD based only on what she learned from the Bush administration.

[Skeptic]

Apparently you believe that Hillary Clinton was convinced that Saddam had WMD based only on what she learned from the Bush administration. Hillary Clinton foolishly believed what the Pentagon / CIA war mongers told her. She was insufficiently skeptical. Hillary was not aware of any hard evidence that Saddam had WMD, because there was no such evidence. Hillary's support for the war is unjustified. Yet, neither she nor her husband ever ordered the full-scale invasion of Iraq. If she had, she would have been as misguided as Bush. If she had been in a position to make the life or death decision to go to war, I suspect she would have tempered her rhetoric with more skepticism.

President Bush may have also believed what the Pentagon / CIA war mongers told him. He was also not aware of any hard evidence that Saddam had WMD, because there was no such evidence. But Bush did order the unnecessary invasion of Iraq anyway! He did so because he did not have the sense to ask the tough questions of his intelligence advisers. Another real possibility is that Bush intentionally failed to ask the tough questions, because he did not want to be talked out of his preconceived wish to take out Saddam and foolishly attempt to remake the Middle East in our image, or because there were other misguided ideological, economic and strategic motives.

Bush did not only not want to ask the tough questions, he also did not want others asking tough questions. Why else would he surround himself only with pro-war supporters everywhere he goes? Joe Wilson asked some tough questions, and Bush did not like him at all.

Faith-based Presidents tend not to ask to many questions, lest they backslide into doubt. Yet, asking tough questions is the only way to find out the truth.

[BillyBob]

:cow:

[BillyBob]

:blabla:

Guess which post that was!

[BillyBob]

Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
"It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

John Kerry > February 23, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East."

Bill Richardson > May 29, 1998
"The threat of nuclear proliferation is one of the big challenges that we have now, especially by states that have nuclear weapons, outlaw states like Iraq."

Tom Daschle > February 11, 1998
"The (Clinton) administration has said, 'Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?' That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we d