Bleeding Heart Liberals-the downfall of a generation

Registered: June 04, 2004

Posted

ya you whine about rush limbaugh when one of your heroes is michael moore. Michael Moore? he is one of those stinkin sad a s s liberals that tries to cover up his opinions with facts. he wont admit that he is biased. he is bent on the wild asssumption that he cannot be wrong. he repreents the liberal biased media currently.
look at my topic under star power about his so called "documentary".

*This post has proudly been deemed racism free by the Honorable Coalition of Bushsupporter, Marine16, notsojoey, FreeMarketLover, and Redrepublican in their endless pursuit to cast out the bigotry that has infiltrated youthNOISE.*

Ignored post by redrepublican posted

Registered: June 04, 2004

Posted

if republicans favor rich, the dems favor the poor which isn’t fair either.

if we knew he had mass graves, its all the more reason we go to war with him. The CIA’s sources and his has been said countless times it is very well known that there sources might be unreliable.

You said in your post that he was pro-choice which makes him far from conservative.

If I said he took down Russia by himself, I was exaggerating.

Oh hell ya it was one of the worst since the GD. Clinton’s economy was an effect of Reagenomics. There wasn’t a predecessor president to Reagen that did a good job. You can trace back to Johnson but I dont know how well he did with the economy.

What developments? The only thing I could see as a development would be the court marshaling that’s about it there aren’t any other developments.

Im not just talking about the war, moron. Im talking about domestic issues to (economy, environment etc.)

How would you know if he is so crazy if you never listen to his show?

again, how would you know what he said if you never listen to his show?

here I will give you some credit. He can get a little flustered.

I havent followed his story so shoot me.

First they have found separate cases of mustard and serin gas in Iraq. Your head is the rock.

Liberals views on what the government should do are communistic. That is the truth. Whats not to understand about that? Its not hard to grasp. You wont stop until your candidate is in office.

How has he lied about the economy the environment, Iraq, war on Terror, or any of the other issues you listed. No party is perfect but when it comes to who has more valid points, the Republicans come out with flying colors.

no that is not the average mind set. Ya who took the survey? Insurgency activists? Or an average civilian? There are thousands protesting but there are millions of people in Iraq. A thousand doesn’t stand a chance to a million.

ya so what if he met with them? That was before we were against him. Before the Gulf War. They were fighting against the Iranis. We supported Iraq. TIMES CHANGE. By the way the photo could have been made.

They have not heavily invested in Iraqi oil. Arabian Oil will be less then 35.00 per barrel by October 15. you cannot say those are American products cuz they were made in Indonesia and Taiwan and stuff like that. They aren’t American products.

Those were not guided by the US.
The Aficans. Hmm im surprised they didn’t revolt before they did because the Europeans mistreated them and didn’t give them any rights.
The Crusades. The English were trying to take back the Holy Lands. They wanted to kill the Turks. They weren’t forcing anything on them.
Soviets. They lost because we supported iraq and gave them weapons to fight Russia.

How do you know that when saddam dismissed the inspectors in ’98 that he didn’t create some nukes and send them to Syria? North Korea hasn’t threatened us. North Korea wasn’t under law to not make WMDs iraq was and Iraq did. My paragraphs are senseless? Don’t even go there.

We did but they were not our enemies. It is the same thing with the Afghanis. We gave them weapons to stave off communism because communism was the issue that was being dealt with at that time. No Germany and France both knew that when Saddam was taken out, their little secret dealings would be over.
Ha you’re an idiot. You don’t know the meaning of sanity you pompous little fool.

this post has proudly been deemed racism free by teh Honorable Coaltiotn of Bushsupporter, Marine 16, notsojoey, FreeMarketLover, and Redrepublican and their enldess pursuit ot cast out the bigotry that has infiltrated youthNOISE.

Ignored post by redrepublican posted

CelticNewAger

Registered: December 11, 2003

Posts: 9501

Posted

Mr. Blue, coming from a liberal, let me inform you that we are the ones getting bashed in this site. and, let me also inform you and remind you, that in this site you can state your opinion, and it doesnt matter how. also, YN is not going to kickc our ***** out, because we are the ones who make this site interesting and debatable. if they kick us out, then you'll only read bible quotes and stuff along the lines of "gay marriage is wrong!". and get out of your bubble, we exist, we enjoy it, and we're not leaving for your sake.

and also let me remind you that this site is NOT only for Americans, so if you see foreigners, get used to it. or you can move to the moon and be close to tha American flag.

now i am not in any plitical party, because they are ALL corrupt. I am a liberal in my way of thinking, which is different

Ignored post by CelticNewAger posted

matt404

Registered: May 12, 2004

Posts: 99

Posted

quote:
Hell ya they are more wealthy. Look at the top ten richest politicians. I forgot how many more dems were on the list then repubs. So what if more CEO support Bush? That doesn’t make him rich. It funds his campaigns and stuff like that.

Richest politicians are different from the followers. I am talking about followers, for clarification. Largely, on the main part, the rich follow repubs, because repubs favor the rich. CEOs do mean a lot, and Bush is the richest politician of them all, examine your source before you quote from it.

quote:
I will say this again. If he can hide mass graves he can hide nukes. Its not a difficult concept to grasp. He had serin gas what makes you think he didn’t have any more (weapons)?

Once again, I have to say it myself. WE KNEW HE HAD MASS GRAVES! GOD! Did you read my last post or not? And once again, Saddam was never able to make any nuclear weapons. He had to dump the project in 1974. THAT, my friend, is an easy concept to grasp. Watch the History Channel's special on Iraqi WMD. Or you can just call the History Channel left-wing biased media, like you always do. And would you read my last post please? I said it and I'll say it again. THERE WAS NO PROOF OF WEAPONS THERE! None! However, the UN AND CIA were able to come up with reports saying there weren’t any! For all you know, the insurgents could have bought it off the black market right after the fall of Saddam when Iraq was in turmoil!

quote:
He is no conservative. He may run for the ideas of republican party but he is pro choice and judging on how he hasn’t tried to stop san Francisco he isn’t against gay rights either. He is a liberal republican (I know that sounds like an oxymoron but its true.) what plusses?

He is conservative. Just admit it. He is pro-choice and he has strongly opposed the gay marriages in SF. He has many other conservative aspects. And I am not going to even bother debating you’re "what plusses?" comment.

quote:
He had a lot to do with the takedown of communist Russia! He pressured them with military build up. Fissures started to show. The final blow I think was economic collapse, which had a lot to do with the problems of communist ideals.

Ok fine. Unlike you, I am going to admit something. Ronald Reagan had more to do with the breakup with the USSR than I gave him credit for. However, I change my comment to the fact that he did not single handily do it. It took help from people like Gorbachev and Walesa, two unsung heroes.

quote:
What benefits?? Carter had one of the worst economies since the GD. But Nixon didn’t do a good job either. The economy is such a crucial issue in the election of presidents. Why do you think Clinton was elected? His campaign had to do with how bad the economy was. Why do you think Bush Sr. was elected? Because Reagen did such an excellent job with the economy. To say he didn’t is ignorant. talk about not doing a good job with economy. Clinton had the benefits of Reagen’s era.

Carter didn’t have a great economy under his watch, but you're over exaggerating something. It was not one of the worst since the great depressions. I am not saying that Reagan did a bad job with the economy. In fact, I think he did a good job. What I am saying is that Clinton had to build his own economy. There had been one president in between and the economy went down as Reagan left office. Look at the charts. Let me say again that if Clinton received the benefits from Reagan’s era, then Reagan received his benefits from a previous president. Now that’s not true, so it proves your theory as bogus.

quote:
the liberal media has pounded the subject. It has been EIGHT MONTHS since it happened and it is still being talked about alot. Ya it was a bad thing but let it go. One American flaw and the liberals jump to put Bush in a bad light.

It has been eight months yet the media is reporting on the DEVELOPMENTS! They are reporting on what is happening. This whole abuse scandal is a chain of events, and everything builds on each other. Things like the Nick Berg beheading is something that is being updated on, its just there really isn’t much to update.

quote:
Umm ok you keep thinking that about liberal media. But they do get the news before us and they ask themselves the question, “does this help kerry and does it demonize Bush?” they don’t report topics that put bush and the war in a good light.

My theory is something you seriously need to consider. They get the news first and report on it. Have you considered that maybe everything demeans Bush because almost everything Bush has done has been wrong? Besides the capture of Baghdad and the Arrest of Saddam, has there ever been a good event in Post-war Iraq? It all looks like despair, death, and downfall to me.

quote:
Rush makes very valid points. Ok he foams at the mouth suuuuuuuuuure. Idk where you get the idea that reps are hydrophobic.

I don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh, partly because I want to maintain my sanity. When I say that Rush foams at the mouth, it is a figure of speech. He is so crazed it is almost as if he has rabies. I don’t see what having rabies has anything to do with being hydrophobic.

quote:
He didn’t sympathize the prison scandal! He just said it was being talked about too much. And he was right. EIGHT MONTHS! EIGHT MONTHS! EIGHT MONTHS! EIGHT MONTHS! Enough already.

Yes he did. He said that the tactics were "genius" and claimed the soldiers where simply blowing off steam. Now that could very well be the case, yet you don’t claim it is ok. Hell, I am mad after reading you posts, so do I go make a guy give a bj to his friend?

quote:
The Chelsea Clinton thing. Hmm never heard about it. Could I see one?

Well you can’t really see one, party because it is 11 years old. One time Rush was doing an appearance on his TV show in 1993. At one point, while he was talking about the white house family, he show a slide of the Clinton's cat Socks and says "not only do the Clintons have a White house cat" and then he goes to the next slide that shows a picture of Chelsea Clinton, he says "the also have a white house dog!" (these are the days before buddy.) That is an ad hominem attack. Calling Chelsea a "dog" simply because of her looks is ad hominem. Dont believe me? Check out the link below. Want more proof? I'll gladly do the research for you.
http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/04/03/far04008.html

quote:
Hes on drugs??? Wow news to me. Yep weve all been on drugs (aspirin and stuff like that).

You never knew that. That’s quite silly, if I don’t say so myself. He bought them from his maid. It’s a well-known fact and you need to stop covering yourself from the truth. Here are some stories covering the issue.
CNN

Fair.org

NY Daily News

Liberal truth deformation? I don’t think so. I first heard about it while watching FOX news.

quote:
Lies. again keep believing that. Hannity speaks the truth. Wow its like I speak to a rock.

And here it is folks; Redrepub takes the cornered rat pose and lashes out. You sound more like a Nazi prison guard then a debater. Hannity is a liar. He lies quite a bit. Hell, he said we had found Mustard gas in the Euphrates. He lied about school vochures. I will provide more on request, but I don’t like typing so you have to ask. And by the way, the only thing that is "rock" is your head.

quote:
Liberals think the government should take care of everything. You commie. We pay their taxes because they cannot. There was no tax cut to the wealthy.

Roar! I'm guessing that when you feel trapped you make ad hominem retorts, just like your God, Mortimer Limbaugh. I don’t really understand your liberals control over government thing, probably because it is simply untrue poison. Both the poor and the rich pay taxes, yet it is good and progressive that the privileged rich (like yourself, I assume, and me) pay more, so that the poor are allowed to gain access to mainstream society and contribute the growth of the economy. That's simple principle. And the Bush tax cuts did heavily benefit the wealthy. Again, I will explain if you wish.

quote:
God, you liberals never let anything go . He was elected fair and square like ive said before, liberals will not stop until they have one of their candidates in office. What does he lie about?? You have evaded again. Im not saying the rep. Party is perfect. But its a lot better in most aspects.

Look, I'm arguing just like you. Katherine Harris illegally scrubbed thousands of innocent, mainly black, voters in the Florida recount. Who knows, maybe bush would've won even if those votes were counted. But he cheated simply to guarantee himself power. That is deplorable. And of course we won’t stop until we have one of our candidates in office. BECUASE NEITHER WILL YOU! Bush has lied about many things: the economy, the environment, Iraq, Medicare, his tax cut, 9/11 and the war on terror, and even basic principles like how he fell of his bicycle. No party is perfect. Its just who you agree with.

quote:
Hell no. the media has shown you a handful of Iraqis and you jump to the assumption that that’s what all Iraqis believe.

A recent study shows that only 2% of Iraqis see America as liberators. The percentage was a bit higher after America got into Baghdad but not that much. The media doesn’t show you the pictures of the Iraqis who dance in the street when an American dies, the pictures of thousand, and thousands of anti-US protestors. Heck, the Shiites and Sunnis have allied for the first time simply to defeat the US. That is the average thought of America in the mind of an Iraqi.

quote:
With technology today, I wouldn’t be surprised if you made this pic. All the pics in the Nat’l enquirer look real but you don’t believe them because they are so farfetched. Again I SEE NO PROOF! Stop saying baseless things!

You senseless, path... wait, wait, I am beginning to sound like you. Never mind. That is a real photo that conservatives I have previously talked KNOW is real because they know the facts, here, go on Google and type in:
Saddam Hussein Donald Rumsfeld 1983

You'll get quite a few hits telling the story of that picture. And dont dismiss it as Left-wing lies. Ask Bush and even he will probably say its true. For lack of better reference, that photo is way to realistic looking to be made by any photoshop, especially mine

. You know what, call up the Bush-Cheyney04 office and ask them if the picture is true. If they say no, it’s a lie. Ask Snopes.com!

quote:
If we wanted control of Iraqi’s oil then why the hell are we still over there? Why the hell is gas prices so high? We get our oil from the Saudis by the way i bleieve. What American products? We don’t have any products? Everything is outsourced.

We are over there so that we can install a "democracy" that will allow us to trade for oil. We also want to secure the industry, which is why the gas prices are so high. And the reason we went to Iraq was so we could also allow Saudis to heavily invest in Iraqi oil so that at the end of Bush's term the gas prices could be lowered to help Bush win the election. And what do you mean "what American products." Even though American products like Nike, GM cars, Microsoft computers, American clothes (Gap, Old Navy) have been heavily outsourced, the majority of the money goes to the top. You should know that. The rich CEOs who still live in America. Thats were the money goes, not the factory in Indonesia. If the Iraqi market gets filled with American products. CEOs that strongly support the president will become even richer.

quote:
On the issue of forcing democratic nation on a former dictator regime country. Have you realized the same thing happened with Germany? There was a republic, (democracy), (don’t argue with me over the differences) set up over there after Hitler was gone. It was hard the first few years but after several years, Germany was thriving. What makes you think the same thing wont happen with Iraq?

I SAID THIRD-WORLD NATION. TO BE MORE CLEAR, HOW ABOUT NON-CHRISTIAN NATIONS. A country with a totally different culture and religion cannot occupy and set up a democracy in another country with a different culture and religion. That is a thing many Americans do not get. In Muslim countries, they have Theocracies, not democracies. They would strongly opposed having a naked woman on the cover of a magazine, while many Americans consider it fine. They hate the sight of alchohal being sold on the street (somehting that frequnetly happens now that Saddam is gone) while in America there are bars everywhere. A western-style democracy will never work in Iraq. Period. Occupation of third-world nations, especially muslim ones. Will never work. Dont agree with me? Pick up your history textbook, lets take a look at some the attempts when western powers attempted to control 3rd world nations:

1. Crusades. European Christians attempted to gain control of Holy Land after it was captured by Seljuik Turks, occupy the sacred colonies, many of them containing Muslims.
OUTCOME: Failed miserably. At the end, the Christian left with no territory and tale between their legs.

2. Soviet attempted takeover of Afghanistan. Soviets marched into Afghanistan hopping to gain control over the region which could lead to them to control over all of Arabia.
OUTCOME: No vicotry at all for the Soviets. They were fought off with strong resistance on the part of the Mujhaden who were largely supported by the US. Towns that fell under Soviet control at points turned into riot houses and bloodbaths. Soviets went home quickly.

3. European colonization of Africa. Europeans made colonies in Africa. It was a hot deal and almost all European counrtries joined in. This was for the quest of gold, silver, Ivory, Furs, spices, and oil (sound familiar?).
OUTCOME: Pretty much a loss. Although all of Africa remained colonized for awhile. Eventually, countries started to rebel and attack European troops. Outposts fell and tribal leaders became powerfull. Also, European countries after WWII and fights with the natives of Africa no longer had the will or money to continue keeping their colonies. They all crumbled.

There are more. Many more, instances in India, Somalia, Indonesia, and the 'stans (Turmenistan, Azerbajan, Kazahkstan, etc.) Face, occupations of 3rd world nations always fail.

quote:
We went into Iraq because it is madness to let an evil dictator to have control of nuclear weapons.
Evil dicator+WMD=destruction.
I gave proof in one of my previous paragraphs.

There are no WMD in Iraq. ESPECIALLY NO NUCLEAR ONES. So all there is is a evil dictator, something alot of countries have. Oh but here is a country that has an Evil dictator and WMD! North Korea! And I hardly consider your sensless paragraphs "proof."

quote:
OHHHHHHHHHHHHHH LIBERAL LIES. Why do you think France and Germany didn’t want to go to war? Because they had secret deals with Iraq. If we had secret deals, do you really think we would have taken him out?

Looks, any one with any knowledge of history knows we gave weapons to Saddam before the Gulf War. It is WELL KNOWN. And maybe France and Germany didnt want to have to go to war. They knew the truth. And pretty much every country in the world was agains our little proposition in Iraq. You're right on one point though, if we had secret deals with him, we'd be having tea and crumpets with him like in that pic I showed you.

quote:
this post has proudly been deemed racism free by the Honorable Coalition of Bushsupporter, Marine 16, notsojoey, FreeMarketLover, and Redrepublican and their endless pursuit to cast out the bigotry that has infiltrated youthNOISE.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Your coalition is a joke! You guys try to sound all official when you ellect leaders for your cult and you try to sound smart and truthfull when you make your posts. That's not the case. You guys are just a bunch of Self-righteous and ignorant fools trying to make a point. The only point you make is how you dont know anything. THATS WHY NOBODY, EVEN CONSERVATIVES, ON THIS SIGHT REALLY LIKES YOU GUYS!

Ignored post by matt404 posted

Registered: June 04, 2004

Posted

“Once again, Rerepub, you make a near unbelievable comment. Dems are not wealthier than the repubs. The reason repubs are able to excersice so much power is by the fact that they have so much money coming from industrial firms, such as oil companies, automobile companies, weapons companies, steel and other mineral companies, and so and on. More than twice the amount of CEOs support Bush than Kerry. Unions, a very liberal aspect, usually consist of working class people while union-bashing, very conservative, is for the wealthy.”

Hell ya they are more wealthy. Look at the top ten richest politicians. I forgot how many more dems were on the list then repubs. So what if more CEO support Bush? That doesn’t make him rich. It funds his campaigns and stuff like that.

”Look, the UN care as much about finding WMD as everybody else, and Iraq was under constant watch from space. If you still believe that Iraq had Nukes, you need to realize a pretty old fact. Iraq dumped its nuclear program in 1974. It never was able to even to refine the uranium. At first, it at first had trouble scuttiling the funds, and when they finally got the money, they had trouble finding people willing to participate. When they finally got a group of scientists and were able to build a plant, it was bombed by Isreali bombers. Iraq gave up and has never attempted since. As for those chemical weapons, if UN sensors are unable to locate them, then they are by far unsignificant amounts. Also, the evidence that there are weapons is very shaky and close to nil. Howerver, there is quite a bit of reports saying there were no WMD in Iraq. And they cant find any now, so the reports from sources domestically and all around the world were right. They just never existed. Oh and by the way, we always knew Saddam had mass graves. It was a well known fact!”

I will say this again. If he can hide mass graves he can hide nukes. Its not a difficult concept to grasp. He had serin gas what makes you think he didn’t have any more (weapons)?

”Arnie is a conservative. He has many conservative social and political aspects about him. Its a good example. And once again I state that pointing out Wisconsin as a negative when there are so many pluses out there is a bad choice.”

He is no conservative. He may run for the ideas of republican party but he is pro choice and judging on how he hasn’t tried to stop san Francisco he isn’t against gay rights either. He is a liberal republican (I know that sounds like an oxymoron but its true.) what plusses?

”I have to say again, something like a cold war really cant be ended. And if it was ended, Reagen did a very good job of handling the diplomatic issues (a job that can be easily be screwed up by an incompatant leader) of dealing with a declining Soviet empire, yet the people who really brought the decline to ther red state were people like Gorbachev, Walesa, and the other idealogical revolutionaries in the communists block who fought the USSR. Reagen did a good job of handling diplomacy during the fall of the USSR, a very important job as well. However, you are giving him the wrong lable of him being one of the people who fought it. As for the economy, there was an undeniable fall of its state during the Bush Sr. Admin, so Bill was the one whom obviously fixed it up. And if your theory is true, then Reagen didnt do a good job of fixing the economy, the benefits from the pre-Carter era showed up.”

He had a lot to do with the takedown of communist Russia! He pressured them with military build up. Fissures started to show. The final blow I think was economic collapse, which had a lot to do with the problems of communist ideals. What benefits?? Carter had one of the worst economies since the GD. But Nixon didn’t do a good job either. The economy is such a crucial issue in the election of presidents. Why do you think Clinton was elected? His campaign had to do with how bad the economy was. Why do you think Bush Sr. was elected? Because Reagen did such an excellent job with the economy. To say he didn’t is ignorant. talk about not doing a good job with economy. Clinton had the benefits of Reagen’s era.

”Yeah, I read your little topic, and I think it has quite bit of flaws. Let me list them.

1. The abuse scandal is an important issue. People need to to know the updates. They want to know who's responsible and how this handled. They want to know the cause. Heck, It takes away the justification that the war was about liberation! As terrible and deplorable the beheading of Nick Berg and the degrading of the American bodies was, it got the perfect amount of coverage, but it is the inevitable. Death in war comes, and you should acknolodge that. What else is there to say on the events? Why would the media constantly cover something that can only be covered so much?”

the liberal media has pounded the subject. It has been EIGHT MONTHS since it happened and it is still being talked about alot. Ya it was a bad thing but let it go. One American flaw and the liberals jump to put Bush in a bad light.

”2. Another thing is that you might want to consider: perhaps the media is "biased" to liberalism because there are more positive aspects of it? Ever consider that? The Media receives the news before you do, so they have firsthand views. They probably realize that most aspects are bette when put under a liberal perspective. Perhaps the liberals have the clearer view.”

Umm ok you keep thinking that about liberal media. But they do get the news before us and they ask themselves the question, “does this help kerry and does it demonize Bush?” they don’t report topics that put bush and the war in a good light.

”3. I always find it interesting when people actually have the stomach and sanity to listen to Rush Limbaugh. The guy's a butter-ball psyco. He has a radio show instead of a TV one because he doesnt want to show people how he foams at the mouth when he talks. He is wimp: he dodged the Vietnam draft because of a cyst he had on his a$$. He made ad hominem attacks at Chelsea Clinton. He sympathized the Abu Gharib prison abuse. Heck, the guy is hooked on drugs! Do yourself a favor and dump the Rush.”

Rush makes very valid points. Ok he foams at the mouth suuuuuuuuuure. Idk where you get the idea that reps are hydrophobic. He didn’t sympathize the prison scandal! He just said it was being talked about too much. And he was right. EIGHT MONTHS! EIGHT MONTHS! EIGHT MONTHS! EIGHT MONTHS! Enough already. The Chelsea Clinton thing. Hmm never heard about it. Could I see one? Hes on drugs??? Wow news to me. Yep weve all been on drugs (aspirin and stuff like that).

”As for Hannity and Colmes, Colmes was hired after he acted as a jannitor at Fox News. There were other applicants, many of which had proffesional backgrounds, they hire a jannitor. Also, the format goes way to much agaist Colmes and everything favors Hannity and his lies.”

Lies. again keep believing that. Hannity speaks the truth. Wow its like I speak to a rock.

”Gee, you're educated. The poor do work. What you said such a stupid, senseless, and idiodic comment its not worth even responding to. You say your little "coalition" is against prejudice, but you're not. In fact, I am going to take note of this and make a forum on this. Look on the randomosity board. Its important for people to know. But anyway, what you said isnt true. The poor work plenty. They work hard, and Bush's tax cuts are favoring the wealthy and taking the poor down.”

Liberals think the government should take care of everything. You commie. We pay their taxes because they cannot. There was no tax cut to the wealthy.

”So you think having oral sex and lieing about is worse than breaking into the democratic HQ? Wow, never thought I would meet one of these. And Bush lies. He lies to even the simplest things. Hell, the guy wasnt even fairly elected.”

God, you liberals never let anything go . He was elected fair and square like ive said before, liberals will not stop until they have one of their candidates in office. What does he lie about?? You have evaded again. Im not saying the rep. Party is perfect. But its a lot better in most aspects.

”Well you obviously think that the entire Iraqi population is disgruntled, because the majority of Iraqis did not want the US to come plain and simple. You might be hyped up on the photo of the Iraqis tearing down the statue of Saddam. The Photo is true, yet what it doesnt show is the background where American Soldiers are holding off many Iraqi people from entering the square. Also press is currently being heavily monitered in Iraq right now. An Iraqi Newspaper, Al-Hijjazi was banned by the American Army for containing traces of "anti-americanism." However, the army Army replaced it with an extremel pro-coalition newschannel called Al-Hurrah which, ironically, means FOX NEWS! Also the majority of Iraqis say in a survey taken by coalition forces claim they never wanted the Americans to come. The percentage who say they'd wish the coalition would leave right now is even higher. Also, Iraqi prisoners have been tortured in US prisons. We also used to support Saddam through is many attrocities and war crimes, here, take a look at this photo:

If you want I can provide you with a little explanation, but in basic terms Donald Rumsfeld, under Reagen's order, was signing an oil deal with Saddam that would allow Saddam to have Chemical weapons he would use against his people. Talk about freedom.”

Hell no. the media has shown you a handful of Iraqis and you jump to the assumption that that’s what all Iraqis believe. With technology today, I wouldn’t be surprised if you made this pic. All the pics in the Nat’l enquirer look real but you don’t believe them because they are so farfetched. Again I SEE NO PROOF! Stop saying baseless things!

”I never said we wanted control of Iraq. You might have misinterperted my thesis statement. I believe thatt we do want control over Iraqs oil industry, though. During those first days after we finally gained control of Baghdad, the Oil Ministry HQ really was the only building the soliders were told to protect. And I also can predict that now with Saddam out of power the US will flood the Iraqi market with American products. Another thing, if you can tell me a war where a developed nation has occupied a third-world nation succesfully, I'll give you a lot of credit.”

If we wanted control of Iraqi’s oil then why the hell are we still over there? Why the hell is gas prices so high? We get our oil from the Saudis by the way i bleieve. What American products? We don’t have any products? Everything is outsourced.
On the issue of forcing democratic nation on a former dictator regime country. Have you realized the same thing happened with Germany? There was a republic, (democracy), (don’t argue with me over the differences) set up over there after Hitler was gone. It was hard the first few years but after several years, Germany was thriving. What makes you think the same thing wont happen with Iraq?

”If we were to invade these countries, we would have invaded them under the reason that we want to rid the world of evil dictators, THE SAME REAONS YOU ARE USING FOR OUR INVASION OF IRAQ. And Iraq hasnt threatend us, but you know who has? Saudi Arabia. They give lots of money to terrorists that claim Jihad against us. I'd say that's more threating than a country that doesnt have any weapons and there is no proof to say they do.”

We went into Iraq because it is madness to let an evil dictator to have control of nuclear weapons.
Evil dicator+WMD=destruction.
I gave proof in one of my previous paragraphs.

”I never said we gave any weapons to Saddam after the gulf war, I'm saying that we gave him some before. We gave him some during the Iran-Iraq war and after until the failed oil pipe deal (dont know what that is? Hint: It has to do with the pic I showed you. Still dont know the story. I can tell you.) And we gain alot with dealing with Iraq. In Sudan, where dictator Omar Al-Bashr reigns, we gain oil from the south, an area Bashir oppreses. We also get cheap labor and we are able to build factories there.”

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHH LIBERAL LIES. Why do you think France and Germany didn’t want to go to war? Because they had secret deals with Iraq. If we had secret deals, do you really think we would have taken him out?

this post has proudly been deemed racism free by the Honorable Coalition of Bushsupporter, Marine 16, notsojoey, FreeMarketLover, and Redrepublican and their endless pursuit to cast out the bigotry that has infiltrated youthNOISE.

Ignored post by redrepublican posted

matt404

Registered: May 12, 2004

Posts: 99

Posted

quote:
I was just making an observation sheesh. And that’s not the case now. Dems are wealthier then republicans.

Once again, Rerepub, you make a near unbelievable comment. Dems are not wealthier than the repubs. The reason repubs are able to excersice so much power is by the fact that they have so much money coming from industrial firms, such as oil companies, automobile companies, weapons companies, steel and other mineral companies, and so and on. More than twice the amount of CEOs support Bush than Kerry. Unions, a very liberal aspect, usually consist of working class people while union-bashing, very conservative, is for the wealthy.

quote:
They aren’t going to use their sophisticated technology to search every square inch of Iraq. If saddam can keep his mass graves a secret, where thousands and thousands of people are buried, he can keep a couple of 9-foot nukes a secret too as well as a couple of small vials of chemical weapons.

Look, the UN care as much about finding WMD as everybody else, and Iraq was under constant watch from space. If you still believe that Iraq had Nukes, you need to realize a pretty old fact. Iraq dumped its nuclear program in 1974. It never was able to even to refine the uranium. At first, it at first had trouble scuttiling the funds, and when they finally got the money, they had trouble finding people willing to participate. When they finally got a group of scientists and were able to build a plant, it was bombed by Isreali bombers. Iraq gave up and has never attempted since. As for those chemical weapons, if UN sensors are unable to locate them, then they are by far unsignificant amounts. Also, the evidence that there are weapons is very shaky and close to nil. Howerver, there is quite a bit of reports saying there were no WMD in Iraq. And they cant find any now, so the reports from sources domestically and all around the world were right. They just never existed. Oh and by the way, we always knew Saddam had mass graves. It was a well known fact!

quote:
May I state this for the record. Arnie is a rep. But he is not a conservative. So that is a bad example. And its not just the governor of Wisconsin it’s the Att. Gen. And half the other libs that run the state. It’s a good analogy the fate of Wisconsin is exactly what would happen to the US.

Arnie is a conservative. He has many conservative social and political aspects about him. Its a good example. And once again I state that pointing out Wisconsin as a negative when there are so many pluses out there is a bad choice.

quote:
He ended the Cold War without a shot being fired. When the economy was as bad as it was it takes a long time for the benefits to appear and it happen to appear in Clinton’s presidency. When Reagen entered the presidency the Soviet Union was as strong as ever. When he left, they were on the brink of collapse

I have to say again, something like a cold war really cant be ended. And if it was ended, Reagen did a very good job of handling the diplomatic issues (a job that can be easily be screwed up by an incompatant leader) of dealing with a declining Soviet empire, yet the people who really brought the decline to ther red state were people like Gorbachev, Walesa, and the other idealogical revolutionaries in the communists block who fought the USSR. Reagen did a good job of handling diplomacy during the fall of the USSR, a very important job as well. However, you are giving him the wrong lable of him being one of the people who fought it. As for the economy, there was an undeniable fall of its state during the Bush Sr. Admin, so Bill was the one whom obviously fixed it up. And if your theory is true, then Reagen didnt do a good job of fixing the economy, the benefits from the pre-Carter era showed up.

quote:
I just launched a topic on the liberal biased media so you can refer to that. On the issue of Hannity and Colmes. The only reason Hannity does so well is because he is right and it takes Colmes so long to come up with some 2 bit excuse and when he does, Hannity shoots it down.

Yeah, I read your little topic, and I think it has quite bit of flaws. Let me list them.

1. The abuse scandal is an important issue. People need to to know the updates. They want to know who's responsible and how this handled. They want to know the cause. Heck, It takes away the justification that the war was about liberation! As terrible and deplorable the beheading of Nick Berg and the degrading of the American bodies was, it got the perfect amount of coverage, but it is the inevitable. Death in war comes, and you should acknolodge that. What else is there to say on the events? Why would the media constantly cover something that can only be covered so much?

2. Another thing is that you might want to consider: perhaps the media is "biased" to liberalism because there are more positive aspects of it? Ever consider that? The Media receives the news before you do, so they have firsthand views. They probably realize that most aspects are bette when put under a liberal perspective. Perhaps the liberals have the clearer view.

3. I always find it interesting when people actually have the stomach and sanity to listen to Rush Limbaugh. The guy's a butter-ball psyco. He has a radio show instead of a TV one because he doesnt want to show people how he foams at the mouth when he talks. He is wimp: he dodged the Vietnam draft because of a cyst he had on his a$$. He made ad hominem attacks at Chelsea Clinton. He sympathized the Abu Gharib prison abuse. Heck, the guy is hooked on drugs! Do yourself a favor and dump the Rush.

As for Hannity and Colmes, Colmes was hired after he acted as a jannitor at Fox News. There were other applicants, many of which had proffesional backgrounds, they hire a jannitor. Also, the format goes way to much agaist Colmes and everything favors Hannity and his lies.

quote:
oh that tax cut to the wealthy was a joke. The poor don’t have a job and have no way to pay taxes. The wealthy end up having to pay their taxes for them.

Gee, you're educated. The poor do work. What you said such a stupid, senseless, and idiodic comment its not worth even responding to. You say your little "coalition" is against prejudice, but you're not. In fact, I am going to take note of this and make a forum on this. Look on the randomosity board. Its important for people to know. But anyway, what you said isnt true. The poor work plenty. They work hard, and Bush's tax cuts are favoring the wealthy and taking the poor down.

quote:
Oh its worse then what Nixon did. And Bush he never has lied or hardly ever.

So you think having oral sex and lieing about is worse than breaking into the democratic HQ? Wow, never thought I would meet one of these. And Bush lies. He lies to even the simplest things. Hell, the guy wasnt even fairly elected.

quote:
ya the Iraqis never wanted us there ha! The media shows you a handful of disgruntled citizens and you believe that’s what ten million (exaggeration I think im not exactly sure of the pop of iraq.) people believe?

Well you obviously think that the entire Iraqi population is disgruntled, because the majority of Iraqis did not want the US to come plain and simple. You might be hyped up on the photo of the Iraqis tearing down the statue of Saddam. The Photo is true, yet what it doesnt show is the background where American Soldiers are holding off many Iraqi people from entering the square. Also press is currently being heavily monitered in Iraq right now. An Iraqi Newspaper, Al-Hijjazi was banned by the American Army for containing traces of "anti-americanism." However, the army Army replaced it with an extremel pro-coalition newschannel called Al-Hurrah which, ironically, means FOX NEWS! Also the majority of Iraqis say in a survey taken by coalition forces claim they never wanted the Americans to come. The percentage who say they'd wish the coalition would leave right now is even higher. Also, Iraqi prisoners have been tortured in US prisons. We also used to support Saddam through is many attrocities and war crimes, here, take a look at this photo:

If you want I can provide you with a little explanation, but in basic terms Donald Rumsfeld, under Reagen's order, was signing an oil deal with Saddam that would allow Saddam to have Chemical weapons he would use against his people. Talk about freedom.

quote:
We do not want control of Iraq. If we wanted control we wouldnt be handing over the reins at the end of this month. You liberals yelled at us for going into Iraq.

I never said we wanted control of Iraq. You might have misinterperted my thesis statement. I believe thatt we do want control over Iraqs oil industry, though. During those first days after we finally gained control of Baghdad, the Oil Ministry HQ really was the only building the soliders were told to protect. And I also can predict that now with Saddam out of power the US will flood the Iraqi market with American products. Another thing, if you can tell me a war where a developed nation has occupied a third-world nation succesfully, I'll give you a lot of credit.

quote:
Do you realize what kind of uproar would happen if we invaded these countries? They havent threatened America either.

If we were to invade these countries, we would have invaded them under the reason that we want to rid the world of evil dictators, THE SAME REAONS YOU ARE USING FOR OUR INVASION OF IRAQ. And Iraq hasnt threatend us, but you know who has? Saudi Arabia. They give lots of money to terrorists that claim Jihad against us. I'd say that's more threating than a country that doesnt have any weapons and there is no proof to say they do.

quote:
Give me some proof we gave him (Saddam) weapons and money since the first gulf war. What do we have to gain from business deals with African countries?

I never said we gave any weapons to Saddam after the gulf war, I'm saying that we gave him some before. We gave him some during the Iran-Iraq war and after until the failed oil pipe deal (dont know what that is? Hint: It has to do with the pic I showed you. Still dont know the story. I can tell you.) And we gain alot with dealing with Iraq. In Sudan, where dictator Omar Al-Bashr reigns, we gain oil from the south, an area Bashir oppreses. We also get cheap labor and we are able to build factories there.

*This message has been approved by the STASM (Still thinking and sane masses.)*

Ignored post by matt404 posted

Registered: June 04, 2004