Why Bush, Why??????? - Page 3 - 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 09-19-2002, 04:41 PM   #41
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,760
Local Time: 09:46 AM
There is no excuse for the US to do this unilaterally. Period


IF the united states launches a preemptive strike on iraq, we will lsoe any moral ground to tell any nation not to take back any disputed land


Pakistan could occupy all of kashmir and the US wouldn't be able to say anything


Russia could take georgia and the US wouldn't be able to say anything


Israel could just go in and take all of palestine...we wouldn't be able to say anything




The UN is the only method by which this shoudl go. if the UN says no....the Us can't act. if Iraq deifes the UN ...we will get our resolution eventually..if the US defies teh UN....that is a sever blow to the long term health of the UN.

This is the reason the UN exists.


Bush is being a sore loser right now. They wanted weapons inspectors back in...they let them back in and UNTIL they are kicked out...he should just keep his mouth shut...and not send Colin powell to congress today to get a use of force bill. This refelcts badly on the US and the Bush administration. He essentially looks like a war monger.


what the administration is doing is WRONG period. and if The US defies the UN...iraq is the real winner no matter if there is a regime change or not.


Multi lateral support is the ONLY solution to this period.

get the economy back on track...and fight al qaeda.


that is what the focus should be and this iraq deal is a dangerous distraction .
__________________

V Nura is offline  
Old 09-19-2002, 04:49 PM   #42
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 03:46 AM
This will be a post where I claim ignorance again Arun.

Can anyone clear something up for me with hard evidence please?

I know the press is reporting that Iraq is allowing inspectors back in. I am also hearing on the radio news that they are "limiting" inspections to military facilities only. If this is true is this in violation of the UN Reslolutions?

Arun, I agree this situation has much at stake for the world. The UN is in jeopardy of losing a lot of respect in this instance. I think that is bad as well.

As for the president seeking aproval of our congress....I believe he must do this even if the UN Approves action. Sounds like he is making sure all is in line. As for attacking Iraq without UN approval, he MUST make his case to the US. Notice his approval went up when he went to the UN. I honestly believe the US Citizenship believes we need UN approval. I may be wrong though.
__________________

Dreadsox is offline  
Old 09-19-2002, 05:29 PM   #43
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: CA
Posts: 100
Local Time: 08:46 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees

"I'm not sure how much you know about European politics, but to describe Europe as having "ultra-liberal" politics is simply incorrect. There's been a massive increase in the power of the centre-right in European politics lately. France is a prime example - Chirac won the election, but his opponent was the extreme right Jean Marie Le Pen - it was hardly a triumph for the left that Jospin was defeated in the first round. Berlusconi is in power in Italy and I don't think anyone would dream of calling him a liberal! In Germany the centre-left Schroeder isn't doing particularly well in his bid for re-election, and Spain isn't exactly known as a stronghold of the left either. Even in Britain Tony Blair is showing his right-wing colours by backing war with Iraq. Perhaps someone from Australia would like to chip in with some more info, but last time I checked, John Howard was hardly a left wing politician either.

And quite frankly, to say people have been brainwashed is nothing less than insulting. Many of the people I've talked to here (yes, both left and right of the political spectrum) are well-educated people who research issues throughly before coming to their own conclusions on them - they haven't been brainwashed by anyone."

Let's face it. Much of this swing to the right is as a result of the racism against Muslims in these countries, which these ultra-right candidates espouse. If it wasn't for these concerns about immigrations, there would be NO swing to the right. This issue has received a lot of attention in the press recently, but it does not mean that Europe is truly swinging to the right or that they embrace traditional right-wing philosophies. Tony Blair may support our war on Iraq, but is he pro-gun, anti-abortion, pro-tax cut, etc etc. NO! Just because you can find some issues where he supports the right doesn't mean he represents our side of the political spectrum. You forgot to mention the Social Democrats electing Prime Minister Goran Persson (very left-wing) by a land-slide in Sweden. In Germany, the major "right-wing" candidate (Ronald Schill) is a xenophobic psycho. He advocates an end to immigration, the internment of foreigners with infectious diseases, and the "voluntary" castration of sex offenders. The say that this is Europe's representation of the right-wing is sad to say the least. People in the states don't elect Republicans because they promise to completely close the borders in our country. They don't preach this sort of hate towards Muslims. They don't want to detain all foreigners with diseases. I'm sure some of you are anxious to start shouting "OH OH! But the Republicans wanted to cut off further immigration after 9-11 and many want to seal the Mexican border!". Well, that's only true of a FEW extremists and that's nothing compared to the policies of Ronald Schill. Most Republicans want to stop ILLEGAL immigration, not LEGAL immigration. Schill's has recently alienated many of the voters making his share of the vote 5% or less. The fact that the term "right-wing" is used to present both these racist politicians in Europe and the Republicans in America is probably why most Europeans hate Republicans. It's the fault of your own media for not making the distinction between these two groups.

Again, the fact that 90% of the ultra-left is represented by Europeans (UK, Netherlands, etc) is no coincidence. You can't make the arguement that just because you've read up on an issue that you're not biased or brainwashed. You don't approach the issue as a robot, you'll approach it as a human who has been encultured in a society that embraces left-wings values. This means that you may research an issue like a potential war on Iraq, but you're not going to make a great effort to seek out traditional right-wing points of view and you'll perhaps even ignore some of the facts (see my previous arguement).



"It's not a contradiction at all. The concern is that wars are extremely costly for the state and mean that money raised through taxation must be spent on the military. Many people on the left believe that this money would be better spent on education, or on healthcare, or social security. However, it's also true that wars are good for the economy - WWII is perhaps the best example of this, as many historians actually believe it was only WWII that finally brought the United States out of the depression of the 1930s. Whether you agree with that point or not, you still have to acknowledge that the US economy was much larger and stronger in 1945 than in 1939. There's really no contradiction between arguing against war because of its cost and stating that it benefits the economy."

There's not much comparison between a war with Iraq and WWII. True, they are both wars, but can you really claim that this simple fact makes these two events equivalent? Of course not considering all the variables. People here aren't going to start buying war bonds, consumer confidence is always stifled around war-time and our wars are much more costly now.

"Point one - I don't think talking about how much you hate people of certain political persuasions really strengthens your argument. Perhaps in future we could keep discussions focused on the issues and avoid resorting to personal insults. "

Point one - I believe I just made a whole discussion of this issue based on the facts. To say that this last comment contradicts that shows that you ignored the rest of my post. What's wrong with speaking the truth anyways? This isn't a chicken\egg arguement. I dislike ultra-liberals because of your arguement, not simply because you don't have the same political leanings as a conservative.

"Point two - I'm not a liberal. Thank you. "

Point two - Yes you are.


From Salome:

"I'm sick of this stuff even it it were true (and I would say it isn't) then it adds nothing to the rest of your post + I don't see what the political inclination of mods has anything to do with the threads and posts that are in fym not that many threads are closed and when mods do close threads it usually is because of the way people act instead of the (political) content of the thread at hand it gets nearly impossible to moderate this forum in any way when you are (for no particular reason) being labelled as a biased leftie every day everyone going out of his way blaming the mods for the state FYM is in will be reported to the admins."

Ahahaha...your post is a laughable contradiction. First you claim that the closing of threads and silencing of opinions is not biased, then you say that you will report criticisms of your bias to the admins (Elvis is also ultra-liberal) if it continues. If this isn't the most obvious case of repression of free-speech and one side of the political spectrum, I don't know what is. Also, you guys are partly reponsible for the way FYM is today. All of the moderators of this forum are liberals. Most of your are very, very far to the left (i.e. Salome, Anthony, paxetaurora and Lilly) and you all actively contribute to political threads so don't pretend like you're are objective watchers who don't have a role in this. You should ask yourself how it came to be this way? There are several conservatives on this board who are willing to balance this out. Also, my posts have been "censored" several times. This is disgraceful.
garibaldo is offline  
Old 09-19-2002, 06:48 PM   #44
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:46 AM
Arun,

There is a UN ceacefire agreement that Iraq is in open violation of. The UN is required to enforce that by resuming offensive operations that were put on hold in 1991. If the rest of the UN is ready to defy its own resolution, the USA will have to go it alone to enforce it.

The old inspection regime failed to do what the ceacefire agreement called for. A new UN inspection regime would be needed to insure that the ceacefire agreement conditions are met. If these ceacefire agreements are not met, then the inspection regime has to have a large military force behind it to force open or search anywhere it needs to. Either way, large numbers of US troops will have to go to Iraq to either change the regime or perhaps be apart of the only possibly effective inpection regime, one that is backed up with force. No more BS where were not allowed to check this place for the next 3 hours while they take things out the back in trucks. What a load of DUNG! Its either going to be inspections anywhere anytime, backed up with military to enforce it, or regime change. Simply letting the inspectors the way it was 4 years ago to inspect only military bases is a joke. I can't believe there are people here that believe that is sufficiant.
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-19-2002, 08:36 PM   #45
Refugee
 
OzAurora's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 1,612
Local Time: 07:46 PM
Good on you Garibaldo- your a right wing kind of person, would you like a medal for this????? you are free to have your views and opinions- I dont agree with them and just because I dont does not mean that I am an un-educated person who is fed a diet of lefty policies etc, etc and when you say 'liberal; I have to remember that this word means something quite different here in Australia- the political party who run our country at the moment are the 'liberal' party and they are extremely right orientated and John Howard our PM is the most conservative leader that our country has had in decades so anyway I will get back to you soon with a detailed post- you say you want to see facts and 'hard evidence'=- well I will see what I can do, but then I wonder why bother- you will always believe what you want to believe and vice versa- guess its what makes the world go around
OzAurora is offline  
Old 09-19-2002, 08:44 PM   #46
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Lilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: back and to the left
Posts: 8,523
Local Time: 02:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by garibaldo

From Salome:

"I'm sick of this stuff even it it were true (and I would say it isn't) then it adds nothing to the rest of your post + I don't see what the political inclination of mods has anything to do with the threads and posts that are in fym not that many threads are closed and when mods do close threads it usually is because of the way people act instead of the (political) content of the thread at hand it gets nearly impossible to moderate this forum in any way when you are (for no particular reason) being labelled as a biased leftie every day everyone going out of his way blaming the mods for the state FYM is in will be reported to the admins."

Ahahaha...your post is a laughable contradiction. First you claim that the closing of threads and silencing of opinions is not biased, then you say that you will report criticisms of your bias to the admins (Elvis is also ultra-liberal) if it continues. If this isn't the most obvious case of repression of free-speech and one side of the political spectrum, I don't know what is. Also, you guys are partly reponsible for the way FYM is today. All of the moderators of this forum are liberals. Most of your are very, very far to the left (i.e. Salome, Anthony, paxetaurora and Lilly) and you all actively contribute to political threads so don't pretend like you're are objective watchers who don't have a role in this. You should ask yourself how it came to be this way? There are several conservatives on this board who are willing to balance this out. Also, my posts have been "censored" several times. This is disgraceful.

listen up. you have no right to come in here accusing us of what we do and do not close and question our motives around it. when a thread is going well be it "liberal" or "conservative" it is going well and will be left alone. when threads are reduced to personal bickering, then there is no point in keeping the thread alive. ATTACK THE ISSUE, NOT THE INDIVIDUAL. it's something that we have said many times, but still, people do not get it.

when were your threads "censored." what was the topic?

and next time you think about making sweeping generalizations about the mods, i would advise you not to, as you clearly don't know any of us.

if you have more issues with this, i urge you to pm us, this will not be spoken about any more in the thread.

thank you,

lilly.
Lilly is offline  
Old 09-19-2002, 09:02 PM   #47
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 03:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Lilly



ATTACK THE ISSUE, NOT THE INDIVIDUAL. it's something that we have said many times, but still, people do not get it.


Well said!
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 09-19-2002, 09:15 PM   #48
BAW
The Flower
 
BAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The OC....!!!!
Posts: 11,094
Local Time: 12:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Lilly


ATTACK THE ISSUE, NOT THE INDIVIDUAL
This should be the new FYM slogan.
BAW is offline  
Old 09-19-2002, 09:43 PM   #49
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Lilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: back and to the left
Posts: 8,523
Local Time: 02:46 AM
while we mods always appreciate support, i said no more discussion on it in here, and i meant it.

thank you.

lilly.
Lilly is offline  
Old 09-19-2002, 10:14 PM   #50
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,760
Local Time: 09:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
This will be a post where I claim ignorance again Arun.

Can anyone clear something up for me with hard evidence please?

I know the press is reporting that Iraq is allowing inspectors back in. I am also hearing on the radio news that they are "limiting" inspections to military facilities only. If this is true is this in violation of the UN Reslolutions?

Arun, I agree this situation has much at stake for the world. The UN is in jeopardy of losing a lot of respect in this instance. I think that is bad as well.

As for the president seeking aproval of our congress....I believe he must do this even if the UN Approves action. Sounds like he is making sure all is in line. As for attacking Iraq without UN approval, he MUST make his case to the US. Notice his approval went up when he went to the UN. I honestly believe the US

Citizenship believes we need UN approval. I may be wrong though.


All Im saying is...I'd liek to avoid a war of I can, I dont' liek to hear teh sound of war drums beating before they need to be sounded.


If he kicks the inspectors out....then go to the Un..then go to congress.


NO matter hwat happens the most inportant thing is that we get support from teh region ie saudi and egypt. and that can only be accomplished through the UN.


Also...I think its' irresponsible to go to congress right now.


JIm davis of florida said today that he feels that Congress and the American people have been left out of the loop and that the administration needs to present a full case to the american people beofre anything more.


The gulf of tonking was an exageratted incident that led us into one of the bloodiest wars ever...I'd rather force the president to make a full case the the US public rather than repeat the mistake that occured with Tonkin. American lives are on the line if we go to war with iraq and I feel that bush needs to make a stronger case right now to jusify the risk


If the administration gives me hard evidence....I say go in and take saddam out.
V Nura is offline  
Old 09-19-2002, 11:08 PM   #51
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: CA
Posts: 100
Local Time: 08:46 AM
listen up. you have no right to come in here accusing us of what we do and do not close and question our motives around it.

I have every right to do so until you choose to cancel my account. Why are you so afraid of airing this issue in this public forum? Why ask me to use PM? Are you afraid that this is a legitimate issue. The fact that you believe that you are above criticism is very telling indeed. Just as it's not good for a government to have only one political point of view, it's unhealthy for a forum to be controlled by moderators of only one political persuasion. I think to most conservatives on here that it's an obvious fact that the moderators are all liberals.

IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE MY ASSERTION THAT YOU ALL SWING TO THE LEFT, THEN PLEASE ASK ME TO MAKE A WHOLE POST ABOUT IT AND I WILL LITERALLY GO BACK AND DOCUMENT A TON OF EVIDENCE TO ACCOUNT FOR THIS.

Ok, getting back to my issue here and lower case letters, I have been censored when I've posted something fairly controversial concerning the environment and a while ago when I posted about Afghanistan. I don't remember the exact details of the post because I simply don't keep records, but I'm sure it's happened several times. I'll post a message, see the post come up at the end of the thread and come back 1-2 hours later and see that it's gone. That's what happens. I'd find it hard to believe that I alone share this experience. Also, what you consider a good stopping point for a thread is open to all sorts of bias and political manipulation. If someone on this forum posts a right-wing msg (let's say someone posted pictures of war planes *ahem*), I think you're much more like to think of it as extremist than when someone says that Bush is no difference than Hussein or some other ultra-left msg, which I personally find very offensive. I have put a lot of time into making this thread factually relevant, so please don't accuse me of simply attacking the individual (in fact, someone even mentioned that I used the fact to make a good arguement in this thread).

I'm tired of the threats coming from mods and members of this forum. If you believe that you have absolute power because you put extra time into this and that entitles you to do whatever you want, then please allow someone else (me, Z-edge, diamond, achtung bubba, etc) the opportunity to step in or just simply state OPENLY that you don't care about fairness in exercising the rules.

It has become painfully clear to me that this forum cares nothing about issues of fairness and balance. Ample evidence comes from threatening PMs in my box that state things like:
"you pay nothing, therefore you are entitled to nothing. They do their job, you put up and shut up, because youre here by their good graces, nothing else. If they feel the need to close down a thread, they will do so, whether you like it or not."

I also believe that the moderators ignore instances when liberals make outright generalizations and insults about conservatives when the opposite would cause quite a scene. I can document evidence of this too.

This forum, in my opinion, would be best served by a balance of viewpoints in its administration. Further, like someone holding a political position in the government, they should never answer questions of their objectivity with threats and suppression, but with a valid arguement. Arguing that your extra effort justifies any means of administering the rules which best pleases you is well...totalitarian in a way.


OzAurora:

I can see your point about how "liberal" can be taken two ways as well. It's a valid point. However, Americans don't often focus on foreign political groups (i.e. Australia) to make such a comparison between foreign ultra-liberals (i.e. radical socialists) and domestic liberals. I'd be surprised if many right-wingers are even aware of militant socialists or the far-left policies of countries like Sweden to make such a comparison. Also, our country does not often make public criticisms of foreign left-wing groups in other countries. Several Europeans governments and activists DO focus on political groups in America and we hear of criticism from Europeans of our government (and especially Republicans) nearly every day, which is why I think it's more important that Europeans distinguish between their own right-wing political groups and ours.

Also, you asked why you should bother to look for hard evidence. Why bother to come to this forum and engage in the first place, right?
garibaldo is offline  
Old 09-19-2002, 11:31 PM   #52
New Yorker
 
brettig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: heehee, ask george
Posts: 3,194
Local Time: 03:46 AM
What Tyler said.

Also, I'd like it if yanks and others didn't make assumptions about our country, its people or its politics without first checking it out - what garibaldo said about us 'having just about all liberal politicians' is utter crap.
brettig is offline  
Old 09-20-2002, 12:11 AM   #53
BAW
The Flower
 
BAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The OC....!!!!
Posts: 11,094
Local Time: 12:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Lilly
while we mods always appreciate support, i said no more discussion on it in here, and i meant it.

thank you.

lilly.
Sure Lilly, it won't happen again.
BAW is offline  
Old 09-20-2002, 10:27 AM   #54
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Lilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: back and to the left
Posts: 8,523
Local Time: 02:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by garibaldo
listen up. you have no right to come in here accusing us of what we do and do not close and question our motives around it.

I have every right to do so until you choose to cancel my account. Why are you so afraid of airing this issue in this public forum? Why ask me to use PM? Are you afraid that this is a legitimate issue. The fact that you believe that you are above criticism is very telling indeed. Just as it's not good for a government to have only one political point of view, it's unhealthy for a forum to be controlled by moderators of only one political persuasion. I think to most conservatives on here that it's an obvious fact that the moderators are all liberals.

IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE MY ASSERTION THAT YOU ALL SWING TO THE LEFT, THEN PLEASE ASK ME TO MAKE A WHOLE POST ABOUT IT AND I WILL LITERALLY GO BACK AND DOCUMENT A TON OF EVIDENCE TO ACCOUNT FOR THIS.

Ok, getting back to my issue here and lower case letters, I have been censored when I've posted something fairly controversial concerning the environment and a while ago when I posted about Afghanistan. I don't remember the exact details of the post because I simply don't keep records, but I'm sure it's happened several times. I'll post a message, see the post come up at the end of the thread and come back 1-2 hours later and see that it's gone. That's what happens. I'd find it hard to believe that I alone share this experience. Also, what you consider a good stopping point for a thread is open to all sorts of bias and political manipulation. If someone on this forum posts a right-wing msg (let's say someone posted pictures of war planes *ahem*), I think you're much more like to think of it as extremist than when someone says that Bush is no difference than Hussein or some other ultra-left msg, which I personally find very offensive. I have put a lot of time into making this thread factually relevant, so please don't accuse me of simply attacking the individual (in fact, someone even mentioned that I used the fact to make a good arguement in this thread).

I'm tired of the threats coming from mods and members of this forum. If you believe that you have absolute power because you put extra time into this and that entitles you to do whatever you want, then please allow someone else (me, Z-edge, diamond, achtung bubba, etc) the opportunity to step in or just simply state OPENLY that you don't care about fairness in exercising the rules.

It has become painfully clear to me that this forum cares nothing about issues of fairness and balance. Ample evidence comes from threatening PMs in my box that state things like:
"you pay nothing, therefore you are entitled to nothing. They do their job, you put up and shut up, because youre here by their good graces, nothing else. If they feel the need to close down a thread, they will do so, whether you like it or not."

I also believe that the moderators ignore instances when liberals make outright generalizations and insults about conservatives when the opposite would cause quite a scene. I can document evidence of this too.

This forum, in my opinion, would be best served by a balance of viewpoints in its administration. Further, like someone holding a political position in the government, they should never answer questions of their objectivity with threats and suppression, but with a valid arguement. Arguing that your extra effort justifies any means of administering the rules which best pleases you is well...totalitarian in a way.


my purpose in asking you to contain this to a pm was so as to not disturb this thread more than it has been. if you've tried to save it thus far, you will fail if you continue to digress from the issue and attack myself, the mods, the admins, or the board itself.

this discussion will continue via PM. it will not, NOT continue in this thread.


lilly.
Lilly is offline  
Old 09-20-2002, 10:55 AM   #55
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 10:46 AM
Re: Re: Why Bush, Why???????

Quote:
Originally posted by garibaldo

Let me say again how much I hate ultra-liberals. Let me count the ways.....Your baseless generalizations, thoughtless analogies and general stupidity is almost endearing....almost. whenhiphopdrovethebigcars & FizzingWhizzbees deliver no surprise once again.

hiphop is offline  
Old 09-20-2002, 11:02 AM   #56
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Lilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: back and to the left
Posts: 8,523
Local Time: 02:46 AM

if this thread doesn't head back toward the issue pretty quickly, i'm going to close it.
Lilly is offline  
Old 09-20-2002, 11:13 AM   #57
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 07:46 PM
garibaldo your complaints about this forum, the moderators and the administrators of this site are not backed by fact from these posts. They are also not relevent to this thread. By all means, air them, but not in this thread. It is no secret that threads will be closed if they stray off topic too far and lose base - ie, no grounds for biased modding if this does get closed as a result. You also cannot make grand assumptions about our political affiliations and keep to fact, as I am not a liberal. Call me whatever you need, but do not make it innacurate.
We would appreciate if everyone can refrain from discussing this further. It has been stated this will be closed if it does not stay on topic.
Thankya's all.
__________________
<a href=https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 09-20-2002, 11:21 AM   #58
Refugee
 
MadelynIris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 1,504
Local Time: 03:46 AM
After reading this thread....


1) Yes, It's definitely a mistake to try to assume anything about anyone's political views from a bulletin board. Sometimes some of use sarcasm in ways that is not always understood. Plus, you probably will find that many here are actually closer to the middle but because we speak out on ONLY a few issues, we are mistakenly understood as far right or left.

2) I have no idea what the original topic is/was. It's about Bush obviously, but is also about liberalism/conservitsm, political parties, Iraq, Oil, among other things. Hard to nail down completely. Can anyone help me here?

3) If one does feel like they are being censored, or concerned with moderation, can one voice it publically? Where and how?



MadelynIris is offline  
Old 09-20-2002, 11:43 AM   #59
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Lilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: back and to the left
Posts: 8,523
Local Time: 02:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MadelynIris


3) If one does feel like they are being censored, or concerned with moderation, can one voice it publically? Where and how?




i urge you to PM any one of the mods if you feel there is injustice. please bring this to our attention first. if there were a relevant thread to the way mods operate in here, then post it in there, but this is not the proper thread to do so in.

thank you for respecting this policy.

the mods.
Lilly is offline  
Old 09-20-2002, 11:53 AM   #60
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 10:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars


I don´t think he is a sadist - he just doesn´t give a fuck, which is the same bad in his position. He doesn´t care, you know. He doesn´t care about children dying or his responsibility. He is just a criminal who thinks only about himself and his friends. His hands are full of blood, but he stays totally without any emotion towards the pain that he causes.

He doesn´t get a great pleasure from killing (if I look at his career, well.... - but I think he just pursued his career). He only gets pleasure from making money and from using his power. You know, he is an ill man. A true, one hundered percent capitalist. A mass murderer.

And you can bet that he knows what he´s doing, just like every psychopathic street killer who´s able to lie to the... what do they call it... truth detector?
Why, is there still anything to say to the issue?
__________________

hiphop 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 03:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×