Dubya: "do you have blacks too?"

[diamond]

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

Db9
:idea:

 

[Klodomir]

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?

 

[pax]

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.

 

[diamond]

Im a dork.

DB9

 

[hiphop]

Im a dork.

DB9

 

[KingPin]

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.

 

[TylerDurden]

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.

 

[KingPin]

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.

 

[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

 

[KingPin]

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.

 

[diamond]

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

 

[KingPin]

Well that's an appropriate and well-thought response. Clearly your sarcasm and satire disproves the information and evidence I brought.

 

[Like someone to blame]

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.

 

[diamond]

No Sale.

 

[Achtung Bubba]

"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:

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?

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:

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:

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.

...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

 

[KingPin]

I wonder if KingPin will defend you on THIS.

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

First, I'll defend anybody who is being misquoted and taken out of context. When you say he accused republicans of ATTEMPTED MASS MURDER (your capitals) and he clearly said nothing of the sort, then yes I'll defend him.

I do think he was being sarcastic, I do think you were exaggerating, I do think you were being a drama queen, and the more you appeal to the moderators, the more I think that you're behaving like a 12-year old. Stop tattling to the teacher.

Obviously he can't produce "hard, indisputable evidence", but you want him to produce evidence for words he never said. He could say that since they're cutting spending on welfare for the elderly, then one can assume theyr'e not looking out for their best interests, and a result are harming them... but that wouldn't satisfy you... you want "hard, indisputable evidence."

I'm interested to hear your response to the timeline that I included as a link... especially since it cites all of it's sources, and has some rather shocking information. It's not something you can easily shrug off when you read it all.

 

[diamond]

KingPin-
I think its a stretch to say Republicans are not compassionate when all they are saying is they want some accountabilty in how money is being spent ,curtail waste, and use the $ in the most effective way.. ect.
I think its transparently oppurtunistic when Liberals throw their arms up in the air and claim "the sky is falling" trying to instill fear in the gullible folks.
Im also tickled how soo many non USA folk think they know soooo much about our polictics..I will NEVER come into their countries as a knowitall busybody, telling them of their polictal flaws.
Perish the thought.
Peace
:idea:

DB9

 

[Achtung Bubba]

I'm sorry for missing the post where you gave such informative links. When I asked how you could defend LSTB's claims about Bush and 9/11, I was unaware that you believed the same thing.

I do think he was being sarcastic, I do think you were exaggerating, I do think you were being a drama queen, and the more you appeal to the moderators, the more I think that you're behaving like a 12-year old. Stop tattling to the teacher.

And the more you post, the more clearly you show yourself to be a hypocrite bent on defending a fellow liberal rather than being even handed.

Need I remind you that LSTB also appealled to the mods?

Mods...am I mistaken or do I not recall reading somewhere in our user agreement that profanity would not be tolerated...maybe someone could reinforce this requirement to Bubba...I find his use of profanity most offensive. Thank you.

Where were you then?

The deeper hypocrisy is that - while you will defend those "misquoted and taken out of context" and are accused of believing that Republicans desire to kill the elderly, etc. - you still suggest that Republicans are unbelievably evil, that they either planned or could have prevented 9/11.

When TylerDurden correctly suggests that such a thing "would make him worse then Bin Laden, and it would be pointless," you give links to so-called evidence.

Ignoring, for a moment, what the links say, you once told me that "Anybody who (accuses the Republicans of mass murder) is clearly ridiculous and not worth getting upset over, because they're clearly irrational."

But now that's what you're doing.

Since you asked, I've reviewed that last link, the timeline which is "not something you can easily shrug off when you read it all."

It's produced by an opportunistic shyster - or did you not notice the store AND the "members-only" part of the site? And it's aligned itself with opportunitstic politicians - or did you not notice the video with "special appearances" from Cynthia McKinney and Barbara Lee?

At the very least, it's more couragous than many here - rather than merely raise questions, it has the bravery to actually claim that the timeline "establishes CIA foreknowledge of (the 9/11 attacks) and strongly suggests that there was criminal complicity on the part of the U.S. government in their execution."

But if you put a ounce of faith in this site, you're - how'd you put it? - clearly irrational.

 

[Like someone to blame]

Since when, Mr. Almighty Bubba, did it become a LAW that one could not post their OWN opinions here, no matter how delusional YOU think they are? I can put forth any opinion I choose here re: politics, policy etc and how they affect the lives of Americans etc etc. So your sorry appeal to the moderators is once again a pathetic attempt to control the terms of the debate here because you cannont STAND the thought of someone disagreeing with you. I think Kingpin did you a favor by comparing your appeal to the mods as "acting like a 12 year old". I think you are acting more like a spoiled little 5 year old who can't stand not getting their way. You are a basket case.

As far as the "hurt the environment yada yada yada" get over it. Grow up. Start acting your age- I THINK you said you were older than I-so START ACTING IT! The more pissing and moaning you do the more you make yourself look like an ass (DONKEY).

As for my appeal to the mod's re: your profanity laced post (specifically the f bomb) well, that sort of language IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED IN THE TERMS OF YOUR INTERFERENCE AGREEMENT-so........you broke the rules, comrade and I, on the other hand, have not.

Maybe you should take a break from the board....I think you are taking things a little too much to heart and I'm frankly worried about your health.

Cheerio

 

[KingPin]

Hmmm... good points.

I'm sorry for missing the post where you gave such informative links. When I asked how you could defend LSTB's claims about Bush and 9/11, I was unaware that you believed the same thing.

I do think he was being sarcastic, I do think you were exaggerating, I do think you were being a drama queen, and the more you appeal to the moderators, the more I think that you're behaving like a 12-year old. Stop tattling to the teacher.

And the more you post, the more clearly you show yourself to be a hypocrite bent on defending a fellow liberal rather than being even handed.

Need I remind you that LSTB also appealled to the mods?

Where were you then?

Well, I'll leave the hypocrite tag for now, but I honestly wasn't defending him cause he was a Liberal. I don't just side with people based on their political party.

The deeper hypocrisy is that - while you will defend those "misquoted and taken out of context" and are accused of believing that Republicans desire to kill the elderly, etc. - you still suggest that Republicans are unbelievably evil, that they either planned or could have prevented 9/11.

When TylerDurden correctly suggests that such a thing "would make him worse then Bin Laden, and it would be pointless," you give links to so-called evidence.

Ignoring, for a moment, what the links say, you once told me that "Anybody who (accuses the Republicans of mass murder) is clearly ridiculous and not worth getting upset over, because they're clearly irrational."

But now that's what you're doing.

Since you asked, I've reviewed that last link, the timeline which is "not something you can easily shrug off when you read it all."

It's produced by an opportunistic shyster - or did you not notice the store AND the "members-only" part of the site? And it's aligned itself with opportunitstic politicians - or did you not notice the video with "special appearances" from Cynthia McKinney and Barbara Lee?

At the very least, it's more couragous than many here - rather than merely raise questions, it has the bravery to actually claim that the timeline "establishes CIA foreknowledge of (the 9/11 attacks) and strongly suggests that there was criminal complicity on the part of the U.S. government in their execution."

But if you put a ounce of faith in this site, you're - how'd you put it? - clearly irrational.

Hmm... you're right, it would seem hypocritical. Well to clarify, I'm not really accusing all Republicans of anything. If I'm accusing anything, it's the White House... but to be honest, I don't think the President has a lot of say on matters like this... it's the Pentagon and the CIA often calling the shots.

Those links are not there to prove that Bush wanted to kill 3000 people. Not at all... they're there to show that the incident was surrounded bycircumstances which should have shown them something was going to happen. And that the insider trading shows someone had to have known about the attacks. I don't care about the rest of the site. I'm concerned with the info (all documented evidence) about the 9/11 disaster. What is your response to all the warnings? Or to the insider trading? Or the CIA's face-to-face visit with Bin Laden (the FBI's most wanted) in early 2001?

Is he an opportunistic shyster? Because he has books for sale? Because he has a members only area? These things couldn't be just to raise enough money to keep the organization running could they? I think so. Granted, this guy is a total conspiracy theorist, but he's exposed CIA drug activities on national TV... the government tries to shut down his site every week or so. He has been right on several issues before concerning the US intelligence and government... so I'm not just going to shrug off what's on the site.

I can only say that this site has many valid points. If that makes me irrational, then so be it. But remember, I'm not accusing Republicans in general, nor am I accusing them of planning this, or even wanting all of this to happen. I am saying that everything points to them having some amount of knowledge about the whole thing that they're currently denying. Maybe they intended to go with the "Let one happen, stop the rest" mentality that often accompanies terrorist activity... I don't know... but things don't add up. Maybe I'm not accusing them... but I am demanding an explanation.

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Since when, Mr. Almighty Bubba, did it become a LAW that one could not post their OWN opinions here, no matter how delusional YOU think they are? I can put forth any opinion I choose here re: politics, policy etc and how they affect the lives of Americans etc etc.

Actually, no, you can't: Elvis has already made it clear that you can't call people Nazis, so there is already at least one opinion you cannot express.

True, no one has been prohibited from expressing the opinion that Republicans want to kill old people, but I believe that such an accusation is close enough to the stigma of "Nazi" that it should be banned - or, at least, the accusation should be defended with something resembling evidence.

Returning to the accusation, I find that you STILL will not answer the question, WERE YOU BEING SARCASTIC?

So your sorry appeal to the moderators is once again a pathetic attempt to control the terms of the debate here because you cannont STAND the thought of someone disagreeing with you. I think Kingpin did you a favor by comparing your appeal to the mods as "acting like a 12 year old". I think you are acting more like a spoiled little 5 year old who can't stand not getting their way. You are a basket case.

Actually, I have no problem with people disagreeing with me; they do so all the time, and I engage them quite often.

What I DON'T like, what I find to be PARTICULARLY immature, is the hit-and-run attack against the political party with which I am aligned: an attack in which you say, "many examples exist of Republican efforts to destroy the environment, starve kids, and hurt the elderly..." and you don't PRODUCE those examples.

Rather than back up your claim - or retract the claim and say definitively that you were being sarcastic - you say that you will answer on your own timetable.

I've said it before, and I still believe it: it is intellectual cowardice to make a claim this offensive and refuse to answer for it.

As far as the "hurt the environment yada yada yada" get over it. Grow up. Start acting your age- I THINK you said you were older than I-so START ACTING IT! The more pissing and moaning you do the more you make yourself look like an ass (DONKEY).

You want me to get over it? ANSWER MY QUESTION.

WERE YOU BEING SARCASTIC?

As for my appeal to the mod's re: your profanity laced post (specifically the f bomb) well, that sort of language IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED IN THE TERMS OF YOUR INTERFERENCE AGREEMENT-so........you broke the rules, comrade and I, on the other hand, have not.

...which is why I've asked the mods to address whether you should be allowed to accuse, without evidence, things as heinous as you have. I didn't call for your banning; I've called for a very necessary clarification.

Again, what galls me is not that you find the "f-bomb" offensive; it's that you ALSO see no problem with suggesting Republicans are guilty of attempted mass murder - and, golly, you just can't seem to understand why a Republican would get offended at the notion.

And, again, this could all be solved if you answered one question: WERE YOU BEING SARCASTIC?

Maybe you should take a break from the board....I think you are taking things a little too much to heart and I'm frankly worried about your health.

Cheerio

I'm sure.

If you're so concerned, do me one little favor.

Answer my very simple question: were you being sarcastic when you said the following:

Geez, now that you mention it...I do indeed remember Republicans WANTING to starve kids, kill the elderly, and destroy the environment. Well, practice does make perfect...so eventually they might accomplish this. So much for compassionate conservatism...

In closing, I would only add that many examples exist of Republican efforts to destroy the environment, starve kids, and hurt the elderly...I'm just not going to take the time to spell them out for you, well, ok...maybe just one for the road.......ANWAR.

I continue to wait, as I have been waiting, for your asnwer.

 

[missmacphisto]

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.

Exactly.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Yeah...

Exactly.

Ditto that.

Angela

 

[chain]

ya know Diamond, you're an alright guy. See, at least you can admit that "do you have blacks, too?" is an incredibly ignorant thing to say.

Bubba, while I agree with some if not most of what you say, I think you're missing the initial point here (as joyfulgirl said). Please tell me that you can admit that Bush's question is very ignorant and doesn't speak very highly of his world-awareness. This is not about his honesty vs. Clinton's lying or which one we would rather have.

The President of the United States didn't even know that Brazil had a (very large) black population. You find nothing worrisome in that fact? Nevermind what the question implies about Bush's thoughts towards blacks in general...

This is the best post in this thread.

?Do you have blacks, too?? Ignorant is the least it is. Many would consider it a racist statement.

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Hmm... you're right, it would seem hypocritical. Well to clarify, I'm not really accusing all Republicans of anything. If I'm accusing anything, it's the White House... but to be honest, I don't think the President has a lot of say on matters like this... it's the Pentagon and the CIA often calling the shots.

Those links are not there to prove that Bush wanted to kill 3000 people. Not at all... they're there to show that the incident was surrounded bycircumstances which should have shown them something was going to happen. And that the insider trading shows someone had to have known about the attacks. I don't care about the rest of the site. I'm concerned with the info (all documented evidence) about the 9/11 disaster. What is your response to all the warnings? Or to the insider trading? Or the CIA's face-to-face visit with Bin Laden (the FBI's most wanted) in early 2001?

Is he an opportunistic shyster? Because he has books for sale? Because he has a members only area? These things couldn't be just to raise enough money to keep the organization running could they? I think so. Granted, this guy is a total conspiracy theorist, but he's exposed CIA drug activities on national TV... the government tries to shut down his site every week or so. He has been right on several issues before concerning the US intelligence and government... so I'm not just going to shrug off what's on the site.

I can only say that this site has many valid points. If that makes me irrational, then so be it. But remember, I'm not accusing Republicans in general, nor am I accusing them of planning this, or even wanting all of this to happen. I am saying that everything points to them having some amount of knowledge about the whole thing that they're currently denying. Maybe they intended to go with the "Let one happen, stop the rest" mentality that often accompanies terrorist activity... I don't know... but things don't add up. Maybe I'm not accusing them... but I am demanding an explanation.

I agree that there should be an investigation discovering everything we can about 9/11, what led up to it, etc., and that investigation is already taking place.

(Though the fact you say you're not accusing him doesn't exactly line up with the now popular observation, "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.")

I have reviewed that timeline again, and let me see if I can crystalize a few problems with it.

First, all the warnings about the impending attack (#11, 17, 22, etc.) may have been as vague in reality as they were in the timeline. In which case, it may have been unrealistic to expect government agencies to notice this particular needle - in a stack of needles.

Let's say that they did find the information (like a "a caller to a Cayman Islands radio talk show") credible. As vague as it was, there would have been very little they could do of it, short of detaining Arabs trying to board passenger jets. That's barely acceptible NOW, it wouldn't have been possible before 9/11.

The same goes with the put options (45,46 - not exactly insider trading): it seems far more likely that the information just slipped through the cracks. You simply cannot infer that you could/should have connected the dots before the attacks, simply because we can connect the dots now, when all irrelevant information has been swept away.

Finally, with the allegation of a CIA agent meeting bin Ladin (27), how does the French newspaper find this out? Who did they ask? bin Ladin? The CIA agent? Somebody in the hospital who can recognize CIA agents? It seems hard to believe.

(Amazing that anyone finds that bit of evidence so credible.)

Even assuming that was the case, the suggestion is--what, exactly? That bin Ladin told the CIA agent what was going to happen so they wouldn't interfere? Would it have been easier and safer for bin Ladin to, you know, not tell?

Or did he and the CIA agent (on behalf of his superiors) conspire this whole thing? Why would he cooperate with the U.S. government? Has he gained anything from this?

It's this lack of logic that led me to call it crap.

And I believe that those of you who are giving thumbs-up to the idea that Bush did this and the truth will come to light are dispicable.

 

[Achtung Bubba]

This is the best post in this thread.

?Do you have blacks, too?? Ignorant is the least it is. Many would consider it a racist statement.

Context counts a great deal. Unfortunately (but not surprising), such an important detail did not make the article. But if we can assert that he's a racist, let's do so by all means.

I'm glad to see you're still around.

Last I saw any post of yours, you were making underhanded comments about my arguments in the "under God" discussion - specifically my assertion that rights come from God.

Or, as Thomas Jefferson put it, we "are endowed by (our) Creator with certain unalienable Rights."

You didn't have the courage then to actually make those comments IN THE SAME THREAD, nor did you have the courage to actually offer any arguments explaining why I was wrong (in either thread).

The invitation to prove me wrong is still open.

 

[LOVE MUSCLE]

This is the best post in this thread.

?Do you have blacks, too?? Ignorant is the least it is. Many would consider it a racist statement.

wow that is a deep statement

 

[z edge]

I wonder if he thinks America is even a little bit responsible. I'm betting he doesn't.

what is your fucking point ?

spread your ignorance elsewhere
not in this forum

this dosen't cut it in a public forum

 

[z edge]

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.

So then Bono has no business in politics then , or dealing with politicians and world issues then.

And your bet is speculation that you cannot prove

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

Well since you have been here so long and know everything, you should have noticed that we Conservative Americans don't blindly agree with everything along the party lines, and we do question the issues from time to time

3. I can find many more problems with Bush, and I have posted them on several other threads.

EXACTLY my point! This is another spin-off thread as I have stated before! But your problems with Bush are your own weak opinion, and really have no bearing on a non-American do they? He is not your leader, though we do protect you don't we?

These include denial of past drug abuse

Have you personally done drugs with President George W. Bush?? Fucking prove he has used drugs or shut the FUCK up.

, insider trading, lying about the insider trading, excessive vacation time, going AWOL while serving, etc. etc.

You got to be kidding me, insider trading? Your proof? Excessive vacation time? AWOL?

Please, you cannot even begin to prove this, no matter what questionable source you bring to light here.

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.

Excuse me, but who in the fuck are YOU to accuse every President of the USA of lies and scandals? Worry about your own country, not mine. You are damn lucky to have the USA and our military here.

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.

Fiasco?
Please don't hide your real feelings here.
Tell us what really happened.
How you could possibly post such utter bullshit is beyond me.
You have been posting this kind of crap constantly.
Why?
Your thread is crap.
Your intention is to provoke conservative members of this forum.
That is your only point.
You have also posted that America's Elite forces are inferior to your home countries too?
Well where are they?
Where are those bad boys

You are by far the most despicable member of this forum

 

[diamond]

Umm.
Brother Edge made some pretty good points.:idea:

I think alot of the posts here wreak w Anti-Americanism period.

I have a feeling GW and Clinton dabbled in Cocaine in their past Not together tho.. Just similar lifestyles

Ialso think Clinton might of had to take TRANRILIQZERS to deal with Hilliary in the past so he wouldnt like haul off and slap her or something stupid My speculation..

I do think if someone had proof of their past drug use-
Clintin would deny it,
Bush would admit it and say "your point is"? He wouldnt drag our country thru a web of lies ect..

The difference between two leaders..
Peace
:idea:

DB9