Dubya: "do you have blacks too?" - Page 7 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-26-2002, 10:05 AM   #91
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 01:23 PM

Pax-
Please forgive me.
That last post of mine was boorish and childish.
I overreacted.
Sorry.

Db9
:idea:
__________________

__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 07-26-2002, 10:23 AM   #92
Refugee
 
Klodomir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,198
Local Time: 09:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by paxetaurora
I'm no great fan of Bush, but if I'm not mistaken, doesn't he speak fluent Spanish? It does take a certain measure of intelligence to speak two languages functionally.
What's the other language, then?
__________________

__________________
Klodomir is offline  
Old 07-26-2002, 11:14 AM   #93
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 04:23 PM
Diamond--I actually didn't really "get" your last post, so it's okay...I think.

The "fence" picture was in response to z edge's request for "defense"..."de fence"...

I hate when I have to explain my jokes.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 07-26-2002, 11:48 AM   #94
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 01:23 PM

Im a dork.

DB9
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 07-26-2002, 12:27 PM   #95
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 10:23 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
Im a dork.

DB9
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 07-26-2002, 01:36 PM   #96
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Posts: 130
Local Time: 08:23 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by z edge
Given the combined liberal logic here (with notable exception of Melon), I guess Bono would be considered stupid too then. Why? Have you ever watched the man speak? Between rubbing his eyes and nose constantly, repeating the same old cliches from interview to interview and then the actual language / grammar he uses??? "Ummmm........ (insert cliche).....uh..... ammmm ....applying for the job.......ummmm......uhhhh....god is catholic........mmm.......uhhhhhh..."

Seriously, the guy (Bono) stutters waay wayyy waaaaaaaaaayyy more than President George W. Bush!!!

Now, are you same liberals ashamed of Bono? No, it's okay if he speaks like what you consider to be an idiot. However, if he were a republican president I bet you would. Truth is, he is a very smart man who fucks up alot too.

And those of you who started this thread and contributed to the already beaten to death everyday in a new spin-off thread topic in a judgemental manner, you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

The truth that none of you seem to be able to handle is as follows:

*Everything you and your fellow libs and dems try to stick at President Bush fails and you look foolish as usual.

*You are so pathetic in your attempts at slander that this type of crap and criticism is all you can find on our President.

*You are still wounded that your hero Mr. Clinton was caught in lies and scandals and was impeached. Thats right Impeached

*And you are still in denial that GEORGE W. BUSH WON THE 2000 PRESIDENTAL ELECTION

And can someone even tell me why this SPIN-OFF thread is even still open??

LOL

PEACE, LOVE, and STRATEGRY to all
1. Bono is not the president of a country. Nor does he have a degree from a respected University. And while he does stutter, I'll bet he knows more about foreign affairs than Bush does.

2. I am neither liberal or democrat. I don't have any party that I side with blindly.

3. I can find many more problems with Bush, and I have posted them on several other threads. These include denial of past drug abuse, insider trading, lying about the insider trading, excessive vacation time, going AWOL while serving, etc. etc.

4. Bill Clinton was hardly my hero. His lies and scandals were shocking, but no more than the lies and scandals of every other president of the US. I can't wait until all of Bush's things come to light, especially around the 9/11 fiasco, and how the US government knew the attacks would occur.

5. I'm not in denial... clearly he won, he's the president. Now the fact that it was a VERY slim victory, and that the victory was won under very questionable circumstances, is certainly worth noting. Not that Gore would have been better... they were both poor poor choices for a leader.
__________________
KingPin is offline  
Old 07-26-2002, 02:40 PM   #97
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 940
Local Time: 08:23 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by KingPin


I can't wait until all of Bush's things come to light, especially around the 9/11 fiasco, and how the US government knew the attacks would occur.

In a word: Bullshit.

I don't really like Bush, I don't trust him and I think (hopefully no offence) he's playing up alot to the insecurities of the American people (which is fair enough, but not the best for the world community), but I bet that all presidents, democrat or republican, had stuff that they hid from the US and international public, but I can't believe that one would ever, no matter how much of a shit they may be, would ever have pre warning about something like 9/11 and not do anything about it. He would have had more to gain from stopping it (being a hero and still evidence to go after the people who planned it, and thus still gaining whatever 'true' goals you believe he is trying to achieve with this war) then letting it happen. 3000+ people. Think about it. That would make him worse then Bin Laden, and it would be pointless. He might as well shoot himself.
__________________
TylerDurden is offline  
Old 07-26-2002, 03:22 PM   #98
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Posts: 130
Local Time: 08:23 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by TylerDurden


In a word: Bullshit.

I don't really like Bush, I don't trust him and I think (hopefully no offence) he's playing up alot to the insecurities of the American people (which is fair enough, but not the best for the world community), but I bet that all presidents, democrat or republican, had stuff that they hid from the US and international public, but I can't believe that one would ever, no matter how much of a shit they may be, would ever have pre warning about something like 9/11 and not do anything about it. He would have had more to gain from stopping it (being a hero and still evidence to go after the people who planned it, and thus still gaining whatever 'true' goals you believe he is trying to achieve with this war) then letting it happen. 3000+ people. Think about it. That would make him worse then Bin Laden, and it would be pointless. He might as well shoot himself.
A warning of an attack in the week of Sept. 9

Another warning about hijacking commercial airlines

Warning of attacks on New York and Washington

Timeline surrounding the 9-11 disaster. This link is key.

You'll note that the above links are either from the news source itself (the first link) or they give all the source information so it can be easily verified.
__________________
KingPin is offline  
Old 07-26-2002, 03:29 PM   #99
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 01:23 PM
KingPin-
Weve had several threads about this already.:idea:
These links are ALL speculative and showed how vulernable we were.
Hindsight is ALWAYS a 1000 percent
To suggest that Pres. Bush had prior knowledge is worse than someone suggesting that Dinosuars use to roll around in Play-Doh..
Cmon now fella..


Thank You-
DB9
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 07-26-2002, 03:42 PM   #100
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Posts: 130
Local Time: 08:23 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
KingPin-
Weve had several threads about this already.:idea:
These links are ALL speculative and showed how vulernable we were.
Hindsight is ALWAYS a 1000 percent
To suggest that Pres. Bush had prior knowledge is worse than someone suggesting that Dinosuars use to roll around in Play-Doh..
Cmon now fella..


Thank You-
DB9
To suggest such a thing is not worse... it's actually more reliable, because it can be supported through evidence. You're right, it is shocking. That timeline speaks for itself... the warnings, the insider trading, the meetings with Bin Laden... it doesn't add up.
__________________
KingPin is offline  
Old 07-26-2002, 04:16 PM   #101
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 01:23 PM

KingPin-
Thats right.
I have a secret video tape of GW /Bin Laden/Areil Sharon/and..Wayne Newton having breakfast Sept 8th 2001 at a local International House of Pancakes eating breakfast, discussing 9-11 and airplane routes..
Cmon..



DB9
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 07-26-2002, 04:33 PM   #102
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Posts: 130
Local Time: 08:23 PM
Well that's an appropriate and well-thought response. Clearly your sarcasm and satire disproves the information and evidence I brought.
__________________
KingPin is offline  
Old 07-26-2002, 06:00 PM   #103
The Fly
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: God is Love
Posts: 185
Local Time: 08:23 PM
Does anybody else here remember that popular late '80's early 90's dance club favorite "Things That Make You Go Hmmm..?" Well, I do and at the very least those 9/11 timelines make me go "hmmmm". In other words...it gets one to thinking about the alternative....i.e. what DID WE REALLY KNOW and was this administration somehow aware of this impending event?

Bush supporters here will simply dismiss this notion of direct U.S. knowledge/POSSIBLE involvement as "conspiracy theorists on drugs" or simply sheer stupidity. That is their opinion and they are entitled to it...just like others are free to think otherwise. I have found that you get much more credible information regarding U.S. foreign affairs and military strategy from news organizations based in Europe, specifically the French and British press corps. They tend to have reliable sources (though not always) and that investigative itch severely lacking in our (The U.S.'s) conservatively biased media of today.

While indeed an awful thought, it shouldn't be THAT hard to fathom a scenario in which the U.S. goverment had either knowledge of or a POSSIBLE involvement in 9/11. Look no further than the recently revealed, previously classified material surronding the Cuban Missile Crisis. Kennedy's Joint Chief of Staff and a number of his top aides in the Defense Department ACTUALLY drew up a plan whereby OUR VERY OWN GOVERNMENT would launch an actual ATTACK on the east coast of the United States...against our very own citizens! The purpose behind such an attack was so the Kennedy administration could justify military action against Castro and Cuba by making it APPEAR that we had just been attacked by Cuba! Folks, this plan was signed off on by the Joint Chief's chairman and several other high ranking officials within our government. How scary is that??? Fortunately, nothing transpired but it is indeed a reckless real life example of the U.S. government's attitude of the end justifying the means. Let's not forget the number of times our government has used civilian and military members as "guinea pigs" for drug testing, medical procedures, etc etc which has led to casualties. So I don't believe that it is entirely unreasonable to suggest that 9/11 COULD, I stress COULD, have had U.S. knowledge/involvement if you believe, as some do, that this whole "war" on Afghanistan/terrorism is actually about one thing and one thing only: OIL! (I know, Bubba, z edge, mr diamond you all just yelled "ARE YOU NUTS?" Actually, since this is supposed to be a family forum I gave you the "toned down" version of what you guys might be exclaiming) but I think one could certainly make a strong case that this is exactly what this is all about (besides the Bush/Cheney ego) if you subscribe to the "conspiracy" aspect of 9/11.

Look, I want to think that 9/11 was the awful, despicable, heinous, cold-blooded TERRORIST act that our government makes it out to be. But who really knows except for God. I do know this much: to allege that 9/11 was somehow the fault of the Clinton administration (as z edge, I believe, asserted) is simply inaccurate. Yes, I know you despise Mr. Clinton but to blame his administration for 9/11 is politics, plain and simple. I kindly remind you that regardless if 9/11 was a terrorist attack or a government conspiracy...it happened on Bush's watch-while HE was in charge. That's not me playing politics...it's just me calling a spade a spade. Presidents have to take the good WITH the bad...Bush is no exception. If, within the first 6 months of his administration, the economy soared and the stock market sizzled don't you think Bush would be grabbing all the credit...and don't you think YOU would be giving him that credit and not Clinton, even though the fundamentals for such an economy would have been in place on Clinton's watch? Consider that for a moment if you would.

I honestly don't know what I believe about what happened on 9/11...was it really the act of a sick sick man or was this all about big oil and money, an "ends justifies the means" event like we almost had back during the Cuban Missile Crisis? Only God and the perpetrators really know but I do think it is slightly naive to think that the U.S. couldn't SOMEHOW have been possibly involved...unless you just blindly trust our government in all things.
__________________
Like someone to blame is offline  
Old 07-26-2002, 06:14 PM   #104
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 01:23 PM

No Sale.
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 07-27-2002, 12:46 AM   #105
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 03:23 PM
"Like Someone to Blame," the mind REELS at the utter manure that you post. (I would use another term, but I wouldn't want to offend your sensibilities by posting something offensive or controversial.)

After I call you on the possibility that you BELIEVE the accusation that Republicans want to kill the elderly, starve children, and destroy the environment, you evade, evade, EVADE: you bring up every OTHER possible topic, refuse to respond on any other timetable but your own (I'm still waiting), and let KingPin do your explaining for you.

I even crystalized the subject into one simple question, "WERE YOU BEING SARCASTIC?" and you apparently refuse to answer even that.

I quote KingPin:

Quote:
Originally posted by KingPin
He never accused the republicans of plotting mass murder.

Anybody who does is clearly ridiculous and not worth getting upset over, because they're clearly irrational.
Your take on KingPin's post?

Quote:
Originally posted by Like someone to blame
Kingpin said it perfectly. I have nothing further to add. The debate will NOT BE ON BUBBA'S terms....

My advice to you...reread Kingpin's earlier statement. Repeat. Read it again. Repeat. Maybe you'll eventually see the light.
So, I suppose (and I must suppose, since you give no straight answers) that you were not serious about the suggestion that Republicans want to harm young and old alike, that you don't actually believe that "many examples exist of Republican efforts to destroy the environment, starve kids, and hurt the elderly..."

Yet you have no qualms whatsoever in suggesting that President Bush either planned or knowingly allowed the deaths of 3,000 Americans for the sake of oil.

I wonder if KingPin will defend you on THIS.

There are actually some amusing moments in your hateful post. The assertion that the American media is conservative:

Quote:
Originally posted by Like someone to blame
I have found that you get much more credible information regarding U.S. foreign affairs and military strategy from news organizations based in Europe, specifically the French and British press corps. They tend to have reliable sources (though not always) and that investigative itch severely lacking in our (The U.S.'s) conservatively biased media of today.
It is simply nonsense to suggest that CNN and the New York Times are "conservatively biased," and its evidence of either dementia on your part or a liberalism so thorough that you deem the French press and their hatred of America to be unbiased.

(A book that suggests the Pentagon itself plotted 9/11 is still on the French bestsellers' list, but does that prove some sort of "investigative itch"? No; as far as I am aware, it offers no credible evidence for its galling claim - just anti-American, anti-Semitic propaganda.)

This does explain how you believe National Review represents the "extreme right:" you probably believe the New Republic represents moderate conservatives.

The idea would be laughable, if your conclusions weren't so galling.

You then, to the surprise of absolutely no one who's been paying attention, exonerate Clinton from any responsibility whatsoever:

Quote:
I do know this much: to allege that 9/11 was somehow the fault of the Clinton administration (as z edge, I believe, asserted) is simply inaccurate. Yes, I know you despise Mr. Clinton but to blame his administration for 9/11 is politics, plain and simple. I kindly remind you that regardless if 9/11 was a terrorist attack or a government conspiracy...it happened on Bush's watch-while HE was in charge. That's not me playing politics...it's just me calling a spade a spade.
I can ultimately speak only for myself, but I believe that the assertion of conservatives here - z edge, me, and others - is that Clinton DIDN'T cause 9/11, but his weak foreign policy encouraged the terrorists by allowing them to become more bold.

If we must "call a spade a spade" and look at what happened on a President's watch, I will remind you of the terrorists attacks that occured during Clinton's tenure: a failed bombing of the World Trade Center (which was supposed to do far more damage than it did), coordinated attacks on U.S. embassies, an attack on a U.S. military base in Saudi Arabia, and the attack on the U.S.S. Cole.

Certainly, I know of no conservative here or in the mainstream conservative movement that would suggest ANYTHING about Clinton analogous to what you're suggesting about Bush: that he either planned a large-scale terrorist attack or allowed it to happen for political, economic, or personal gain. Even when we consider the military response that was conveniently timed the same week Clinton gave his deposition, we do not and WOULD not suggest such a horrendous thing as you suggest without MOUNTAINS of evidence.

All WE are merely asserting is that his actions (or inactions, in this case) led the terrorists to become more bold, just as the terrible arrangements in Europe following World War I led to the Great Depression, the rise of fascism, and World War II. NOBODY who concluded WWI wanted any of that to happen, but it did as an unintended consequence.


But let us turn now to your accusation about Bush.

Predictable, you don't point to any evidence: I believe none exists, because the conspiracy theory is utterly baseless.

You also don't make any hard and fast claims, like "Bush DEFINITELY knew something and could have prevented 9/11." It's certainly a great way to cover your hindquarters, a way to back out of this and claim that you never actually accused Bush of anything.

But you do.

Your opinion is crystal clear.

Quote:
Originally posted by Like someone to blame
...at the very least those 9/11 timelines make me go "hmmmm". In other words...it gets one to thinking about the alternative....i.e. what DID WE REALLY KNOW and was this administration somehow aware of this impending event?

...

While indeed an awful thought, it shouldn't be THAT hard to fathom a scenario in which the U.S. goverment had either knowledge of or a POSSIBLE involvement in 9/11.

...

So I don't believe that it is entirely unreasonable to suggest that 9/11 COULD, I stress COULD, have had U.S. knowledge/involvement if you believe, as some do, that this whole "war" on Afghanistan/terrorism is actually about one thing and one thing only: OIL!

...

Look, I want to think that 9/11 was the awful, despicable, heinous, cold-blooded TERRORIST act that our government makes it out to be. But who really knows except for God.

...

I honestly don't know what I believe about what happened on 9/11...was it really the act of a sick sick man or was this all about big oil and money, an "ends justifies the means" event like we almost had back during the Cuban Missile Crisis? Only God and the perpetrators really know but I do think it is slightly naive to think that the U.S. couldn't SOMEHOW have been possibly involved...unless you just blindly trust our government in all things.
"Look, I want to think that 9/11 was the awful, despicable, heinous, cold-blooded TERRORIST act that our government makes it out to be."

You "want" to think the government had no involvement, but you don't.

You think Bush either caused 9/11 or allowed it to happen, probably because of oil. You don't even try to offer any proof, and you're not even couragous enough to do anything more but cast doubt ("only God really knows") and ask vague, accusing questions ("what did we REALLY know?"), but it does appear that it's what you believe. It is what you want to believe.

At the very least, you obviously think Bush is CAPABLE of causing 9/11 or allowing it to happen.

You have said that I have a hateful, delusional mind for thinking that you are capable of accusing Republicans of contemplating and desiring mass murder. Do I really? (You DON'T?)

I have and still claim that you believe Republicans want to kill the elderly, starve children, and destroy the environment. How am I wrong? Isn't this further proof?

(And I again ask, WERE YOU BEING SARCASTIC?)


KingPin, you have said, "clearly from his posts, he doesn't think 'REPUBLICANS ARE GUILTY OF ATTEMPTED MASS MURDER'," and you said I was sounding like a "drama queen" for suggesting otherwise. Do you STILL think I'm clearly wrong?

Are you willing to defend THIS statement?


Moderators, I think this sort of post is so offensive that it should either not be allowed, or the guy should be compelled to produce hard, indisputable evidence to back it up. Do you agree or not? How long must we wait for answer?

Bubba
__________________

__________________
DISCLAIMER: The author of the preceding is known
for engaing in very long discussions.
Achtung Bubba is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com