Griffinator Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 It's really quite amazing to me how many Bush supporters we have on this board that are completely ignorant of the facts surrounding the situation, and instead spew anti-liberal rhetoric in place of substantive arguments. Understand, there are a few intelligent Republicans here, but they are far and away drowned out by the screaming Dittoheads who repeat Rush-isms and in general make asses of themselves while derailing any significant debate that may happen here... A few things for you Dittoheads to consider for a moment... 1) Ronald Reagan's CIA put Saddam Hussein into power back in the early 80's - we needed a dictator on a leash to do battle with Iran, especially after that hostage debacle (yes, bungled by Carter, but there are other shady dealings around that whole situation) - we armed him, we gave him the chemical weapons technology, and we squashed the majority Muslims so he could stay in power. We made that mess from the very beginning, and it came back to haunt us later, as they always do. 2) The same CIA, led by Ford, also placed the Taliban in power in Afghanistan in the 70's durin the USSR's failed attempt to annex that country. We armed them, trained them, and then left them to run a financially ruined country, without so much as a drop of real financial aid. Big surprise - they turned on us as well... So if you want to dig into the past to find people to blame, you'd better dig a little deeper - you might just find some slime you didn't particularly want to see... (edited to correct facts surrounding Taliban) A bunch of loud, obnoxious music I USED to make with friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP3 Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by Griffinator: [b] A few things for you Dittoheads to consider for a moment.....[/b][/quote]Ditto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wow Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 I read it, and now I will ignore it. :) PS: Clinton sucks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted March 7, 2003 Author Share Posted March 7, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by C.M.: [b]I read it, and now I will ignore it. :) PS: Clinton sucks[/b][/quote]Sure does, but so has every other president we've had in the last 20-odd years... It's merely coincedence that 3 of our last 4 have been elephants... :rolleyes: A bunch of loud, obnoxious music I USED to make with friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nawledge Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 actualy monica sucked, but so does your obsession with Bill Clinton. Get over it man you weren't chosen to be his intern, that doesn't mean that you can't go to harlem and intern for him there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOT Bolt Rifles Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by Griffinator: [b]It's really quite amazing to me how many Bush supporters we have on this board that are completely ignorant of the facts surrounding the situation, and instead spew anti-liberal rhetoric in place of substantive arguments. Understand, there are a few intelligent Republicans here, but they are far and away drowned out by the screaming Dittoheads who repeat Rush-isms and in general make asses of themselves while derailing any significant debate that may happen here... A few things for you Dittoheads to consider for a moment... 1) Ronald Reagan's CIA put Saddam Hussein into power back in the early 80's - we needed a dictator on a leash to do battle with Iran, especially after that hostage debacle (yes, bungled by Carter, but there are other shady dealings around that whole situation) - we armed him, we gave him the chemical weapons technology, and we squashed the majority Muslims so he could stay in power. We made that mess from the very beginning, and it came back to haunt us later, as they always do. 2) The same CIA, led by Ford, also placed the Taliban in power in Afghanistan in the 70's durin the USSR's failed attempt to annex that country. We armed them, trained them, and then left them to run a financially ruined country, without so much as a drop of real financial aid. Big surprise - they turned on us as well... So if you want to dig into the past to find people to blame, you'd better dig a little deeper - you might just find some slime you didn't particularly want to see... (edited to correct facts surrounding Taliban)[/b][/quote]Right, and now Germany and Japan are our allies. Shit changes all the time. In both directions. That dog doesn't hunt, dude. "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -- John Adams "I am a senior member, and thereby entilted to all the privileges and rights accorded said status" -- NBR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franknputer Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by C.M.: [b]I read it, and now I will ignore it. :) [/b][/quote]There's the problem right there. :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jotown Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by ChristopherKemp: [b] [quote]Originally posted by C.M.: [b]I read it, and now I will ignore it. :) [/b][/quote]There's the problem right there. :rolleyes: [/b][/quote]Ditto. Jotown:) "It's all good: Except when it's Great" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted March 7, 2003 Author Share Posted March 7, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by Bolt Rifles: [b]Right, and now Germany and Japan are our allies. Shit changes all the time. In both directions. That dog doesn't hunt, dude.[/b][/quote]No, sir, THAT dog doesn't hunt. Germany and Japan became our allies because WE REBUILT THEM AFTER WE DESTROYED THEM. The difference with Afghanistan, Iraq, and many other third-worlders that hate us now is that, while we armed them, we did not help them one iota financially. We left them in the squalor of a war-torn, devastated society, and they hated us for it. Now we reap what we've sown. You want to deny the reality, you go right ahead on and do so. But it's your fantasy, this ideal about the USG being right all the time, particularly when Republicans are running it.... A bunch of loud, obnoxious music I USED to make with friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick K. Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 Wow. Now that's an invitation! Rick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by C.M.: [b]I read it, and now I will ignore it. :) PS: Clinton sucks[/b][/quote]Many thousands of innocent people are going to die to satisfy the desires of politicians. Anyway, carry on trying to be funny. "That's what the internet is for. Slandering others anonymously." - Banky Edwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobT Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by Rog: [b] [quote]Originally posted by C.M.: [b]I read it, and now I will ignore it. :) PS: Clinton sucks[/b][/quote]Many thousands of innocent people are going to die to satisfy the desires of politicians. Anyway, carry on trying to be funny.[/b][/quote]Not matter where you fall on this issue politically. To our shame that is true ... :cry: RobT Famous Musical Quotes: "I would rather play Chiquita Banana and have my swimming pool than play Bach and starve" - Xavier Cugat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted March 7, 2003 Author Share Posted March 7, 2003 That is the naked truth, Rob. Whether you oppose or support our government's bloodthirsty attitudes, thousands die every day, while we bicker about it... A bunch of loud, obnoxious music I USED to make with friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrick_dont_fret Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 Griffinator, I've tried to say that before, but no one wants to know the truth. They all want to believe that they put themselves into power and are not connected to america in any way, shape, or form. america put them into power, and like Griff said, they hate us for what we did not give them...and now, it's america's turn to feel the pain that they have all felt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOT Bolt Rifles Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by Griffinator: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Bolt Rifles: [b]Right, and now Germany and Japan are our allies. Shit changes all the time. In both directions. That dog doesn't hunt, dude.[/b][/quote]No, sir, THAT dog doesn't hunt. Germany and Japan became our allies because WE REBUILT THEM AFTER WE DESTROYED THEM. The difference with Afghanistan, Iraq, and many other third-worlders that hate us now is that, while we armed them, we did not help them one iota financially. We left them in the squalor of a war-torn, devastated society, and they hated us for it. Now we reap what we've sown. You want to deny the reality, you go right ahead on and do so. But it's your fantasy, this ideal about the USG being right all the time, particularly when Republicans are running it....[/b][/quote]Just not true about Afghanistan, As for Iraq et al: if it it were'nt for MadMen like Saddam those countries would be swimming in money. But's it's alot more fun to blame america for the world's problems, or maybe just republicans. It's your fantasy that America is to blame for the worlds ills. "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -- John Adams "I am a senior member, and thereby entilted to all the privileges and rights accorded said status" -- NBR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted March 7, 2003 Author Share Posted March 7, 2003 Patrick - how timely - Bolt here demonstrates his IGNORANCE about world affairs. Do your homework - it's there, BOLT. The Taliban was a puppet government put in place BY the US to pave the way for an oil pipeline to be run from Pakistan to the Black Sea, where our tankers could easily pick it up and deliver it to us... The US does this constantly - disrupts a country's political system under guise of "liberating" them, then sets up a puppet dictatorship that will cowtow to U.S. interests. Panama, Chile, Nicaragua, the list goes on and on. We've been doing it for years... A bunch of loud, obnoxious music I USED to make with friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salyphus Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 Actually I think that pipeline is more about selling oil to the East. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick K. Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 So, enlighten us, Griffinator. I'd like your opinions on a few things. 1. Does Saddam pose any threat to the U.S.? 2. Do you think he poses a threat to any other country? 3. Do you think he had WMD's? 4. Do you trust him more than our President? Rick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrick_dont_fret Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by Sal O'lando: [b]Actually I think that pipeline is more about selling oil to the East.[/b][/quote]That's not the point. The point is that america put them in power, and now america is regretting it. Fun, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted March 8, 2003 Author Share Posted March 8, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by Rick Kreuzer: [b]So, enlighten us, Griffinator. I'd like your opinions on a few things. 1. Does Saddam pose any threat to the U.S.? 2. Do you think he poses a threat to any other country? 3. Do you think he had WMD's? 4. Do you trust him more than our President? Rick[/b][/quote]Sure. I'll bite. 1) No, I don't. His army's morale is at an astonishing low. 2) Probably more to his own citizens than anyone else. 3) I'm sure he did. He used them on the Kurds, remember? 4) When you don't trust either one at all, how do you answer that question? A bunch of loud, obnoxious music I USED to make with friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wow Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 [quote] PS: Clinton sucks [/quote]OK, You guys are right, and I am all wrong. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted March 8, 2003 Author Share Posted March 8, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by C.M.: [b] [quote] PS: Clinton sucks [/quote]OK, You guys are right, and I am all wrong. ;) [/b][/quote]Did you actually read any of the direct replies to the above post? Or did you assume that because they did not applaud your flip, dodgy response, that they disagreed with you? Huked on Fonix Werked for U, I see.... A bunch of loud, obnoxious music I USED to make with friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFOracle Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 Griffinator is mostly right. We did put the Taliban and Sadaam in power. As I recall (this just off the top of my head, feel free to correct any errors). The Soviets invaded Afghanistan in the late '70s to end a vicious civil war, and installed a puppet marxist regime. Initially they had success 'cause of the promise of egalitarian marxism. However the promises of aid and improved conditions failed to materialize. They also failed to consolidate power and a number of armed militias sprang up, mostly fundamentalist Islamics under the banner of "Mujhadin" (sp?) or holy warriors. Under the cold war "hemisphere of influence" theory, the US couldn't directly intervene without inviting Soviet involvment in the messes we were creating in Latin America and risk a direct super-power conflict. So we chose to funnel arms, including "stinger" missiles, to the Mujhadin via the CIA and Pakistan. Incidently, one of these same missiles provided by the CIA was used to try and shoot down an El Al airplane in Kenya a few months back. Soviet casualties piled up and when the Soviets finally pulled out of Afghanistan, there was a power vacume. The regime they installed fell in weeks - replaced by a coalition of Mujhadin group, one of which was the Taliban. Brutal civil war soon broke out as each group vied for total control and the Taliban (with arms provided by the CIA) stepped into the void. Yes - we created the Taliban. We also created El Queda - or at least encouraged it to flourish as a means of funnelling Arab and Islamic money to the Mujhadin. Because of the support provided to the Mujhadin, the Taliban allowed El Queda to setup a base of operations in Afghanistan. After the Gulf war, the presence of US forces in the middle east - particularly in Saudi Arabia infuriated muslims who remember colonialism all too well. El Queda turned on us because of the first gulf war. We looked (and continue to look) the other way as Pakistan developed a nuclear arsenal and trained guerilla fighters (including the Taliban) to harrass India and the Soviets in Afghanistan. However, we did not prop up the Taliban to biuld a pipe line to the Black sea. Afghanistan does not border the black sea. The proposed oil pipeline runs from the Caspian Sea throught Ajerbaigan (sp?) and Turkey to the Black Sea. We supported the Mujhadin and Taliban to prevent the Soviets from gaining access to the Persian gulf via Afghanistan and Iraq or Iran (post Shaw). Oil is still the factor, but when the Soviet Union collapsed, our use for an Afghan puppet state also evaporated along with our nation building aspirations in the middle east. I'm not so sure that we actively put Sadaam in power as much as we played him to provide an opposition to Iran after the Shaw was thrown out. Fear of a spread of Islamic fundamentalism to the moderate Gulf oligarchys caused us to funnel arms to Iraq (including chemical and biological weapons). We didn't want a nuclear powered Iraq, so we didn't mind too much when the Israelis bombed his nuke plants. As I recall, we alternatively funnelled arms to both sides in the Iran Iraq war to prevent either side from winning - indirectly prolonging the suffering of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Iranians. But it served our interest in keeping the most dangerous and powerful of the gulf states occupied fighting each other. Oh - and most of this was done under the Reagan/Bush Sr. administrations. Clinton had nothing to do with this mess. Don't be fooled by GWB's talk about rebuilding Iraq - we are not even rebuilding Afghanistan. Short of providing about 40 US Marines to protect the Afghan Prime Minister from being killed by waring factions if he steps outside the capital. When asked if invading Iraq was a personal vendetta, Bush talked last night about defending the Constitution. I did not grow up in the country, so I fail to understand why Americans get all teary eyed when they talk about the constitution. (yes I know I am inviting all sorts of "if you don't like it here just leave" flames instead of well thought our rebuttals, but whatever. War in Iraq has nothing to do with the Constitution - but referencing this "sacred" piece of paper is a time honored American tradition to deflect criticism. Wrap yourself in the flag and the constitution and you are bullet proof. Even Congress is afraid to take on this mad man. Our country is not the only thing to which we owe our allegiance. It is also owed to justice and to humanity. Patriotism consists not in waving the flag, but in striving that our country shall be righteous as well as strong: James Bryce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted March 8, 2003 Author Share Posted March 8, 2003 Preesh the backup, Oracle. I thought the Taliban came into power (courtesy the CIA) after the war with the Soviets, but I found a site to the contrary, and I revised my post to reflect that info. A bunch of loud, obnoxious music I USED to make with friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael saulnier Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by Griffinator: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Rick Kreuzer: [b]So, enlighten us, Griffinator. I'd like your opinions on a few things. 1. Does Saddam pose any threat to the U.S.? 2. Do you think he poses a threat to any other country? 3. Do you think he had WMD's? 4. Do you trust him more than our President? Rick[/b][/quote]Sure. I'll bite. 1) No, I don't. His army's morale is at an astonishing low. 2) Probably more to his own citizens than anyone else. 3) I'm sure he did. He used them on the Kurds, remember? 4) When you don't trust either one at all, how do you answer that question?[/b][/quote]1. Scott, I don't think ANYONE is afraid of Saddam's army except his own citizens. What people are afraid of is that Saddam has some amount of WMD's (perhaps enough to kill millions), and he may choose to provide it to someone who IS willing and able to use it against the US, Israel or others. Anthrax, for example, is nearly impossible to detect crossing borders. What about this threat? 2. You appear to understand the history of the region. You know that he would like to exact revenge on the US, Israel, the gulf allies and so on. To say that no one should fear Saddam is a misundersanding of the situation. Again, no one fears Saddam's conventional military force. Notice the UN 1441 does not call for destroying their tanks or other conventional weapons? ONLY WMD's. 3. I don't think any nation who's professionals have looked into this believe Saddam didn't have or doesn't have WMD's. Remember UN 1441 was UNANIMOUS. Even the French and Germans agree to this point. Their issue is what to do about it... not if they have them. Even the current debate is not, (as the US wants) framed around IF... it's all about WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT! And when. 4. Trust or lack of it can be a leap of faith. There's not much logic behing "blind" trust. Government leaders, by the nature of the role, have tremendous power and temptation. There are plenty of corruptable influences, and they certainly have agenda's that are influenced by their financial contributors. That's a flawed system. Sucks. Except (to paraphrase Churchill), it's the best one there is. Tbe US and any other powerful nation in history has done many things, including illegal things, in what seems at the time to be their own interest. I don't think this will ever change. I don't really trust government either... but between the two devils... Well, let me ask you. Would you prefer to be a US citizen or an Iraqi citizen? I pick the US. In spite of its flaws. guitplayer I'm still "guitplayer"! Check out my music if you like... http://www.michaelsaulnier.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtrmac Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 [quote]Right, and now Germany and Japan are our allies.[/quote]We also rebuilt the governments of Germany and Japan along with the infrastructure. Especially Japan, which was run by an Emperor, became a democracy. The Emperor wa allowed to remain as a religious figurehead as a concession at the last minute. Japan and Germany's armys are strictly controlled under terms of the surrenders. Don't forget that there was a lot of money to be made after the war. For the victors of course. Oh well. Mac Bowne G-Clef Acoustics Ltd. Osaka, Japan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted March 8, 2003 Author Share Posted March 8, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by guitplayer: [b] 1. Scott, I don't think ANYONE is afraid of Saddam's army except his own citizens. What people are afraid of is that Saddam has some amount of WMD's (perhaps enough to kill millions), and he may choose to provide it to someone who IS willing and able to use it against the US, Israel or others. Anthrax, for example, is nearly impossible to detect crossing borders. What about this threat? 2. You appear to understand the history of the region. You know that he would like to exact revenge on the US, Israel, the gulf allies and so on. To say that no one should fear Saddam is a misundersanding of the situation. Again, no one fears Saddam's conventional military force. Notice the UN 1441 does not call for destroying their tanks or other conventional weapons? ONLY WMD's. 3. I don't think any nation who's professionals have looked into this believe Saddam didn't have or doesn't have WMD's. Remember UN 1441 was UNANIMOUS. Even the French and Germans agree to this point. Their issue is what to do about it... not if they have them. Even the current debate is not, (as the US wants) framed around IF... it's all about WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT! And when. 4. Trust or lack of it can be a leap of faith. There's not much logic behing "blind" trust. Government leaders, by the nature of the role, have tremendous power and temptation. There are plenty of corruptable influences, and they certainly have agenda's that are influenced by their financial contributors. That's a flawed system. Sucks. Except (to paraphrase Churchill), it's the best one there is. Tbe US and any other powerful nation in history has done many things, including illegal things, in what seems at the time to be their own interest. I don't think this will ever change. I don't really trust government either... but between the two devils... Well, let me ask you. Would you prefer to be a US citizen or an Iraqi citizen? I pick the US. In spite of its flaws. guitplayer[/b][/quote]Back and forth we go... :) 1) I never said I'd prefer to be an Iraqi citizen. I've considered moving to Europe, and that thought has penetrated my mental landscape quite frequently of late. That was not one of the original questions... 2) What about Anthrax? I'll tell you about Anthrax. The stocks of Anthrax Hussein had in his possession for the last ten years are now impotent, because Anthrax has a shelf life of six years. There are no biological weapons manufacturing plants in Iraq - only the shit we gave him to fight Iran with so many years ago, and that shit is no longer working. I'm not at all concerned about Anthrax. 3) There is precious little evidence that Saddam has any WMD's other than what we gave him during the Iran-Iraq war. Let the inspectors do their jobs, and we'll revisit that point when the inspectors say "they aren't cooperating" - right now, G Dubya wants to go to war with Iraq - he's not interested in anything but excuses to go. 4) Indeed, the Republican system of government (the U.S. was, at it's inception, a republic) is the most effective form of government in existence. My right to complain that this particular republic has been hijacked by those with wealth is one that is protected under our constitution. I can scream bloody murder that George Jr., Bill, George Sr., Ronnie, Jimmy, Gerald, and Dickie were all puppets for the corporate regimes that run this country, and there's not a thing those corporate regimes (or anyone else) can do about it. That's the one thing that I can say that I love about America - my right to tell the whole damned world how much our government SUCKS, knowing that, legally, there's not a damned thing G Dubya or anyone else can do about it. A bunch of loud, obnoxious music I USED to make with friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael saulnier Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 [quote]Back and forth we go... :) 1) I never said I'd prefer to be an Iraqi citizen. I've considered moving to Europe, and that thought has penetrated my mental landscape quite frequently of late. That was not one of the original questions... [/quote]I prefer to stay and try to influence the things I can from within... ymmv. (That wasn't really my first question)... :D [quote] 2) What about Anthrax? I'll tell you about Anthrax. The stocks of Anthrax Hussein had in his possession for the last ten years are now impotent, because Anthrax has a shelf life of six years. There are no biological weapons manufacturing plants in Iraq - only the shit we gave him to fight Iran with so many years ago, and that shit is no longer working. I'm not at all concerned about Anthrax. [/quote]Thanks for the Anthrax lesson! Can you connect me to a link that verifies your claim about the efficacy of Anthrax? That doesn't match what I remember hearing about anthrax when the attacks in NY, FL, and DC happened. I understood we had stored anthrax for decades... and that these repositories were the first places we looked to see if any was missing when the investigation of the attacks started. Maybe I'm wrong... can you help me to validate this? But even if your point is correct, it's irrelevent because it doesn't take into account Iraq's "hidden" capability to make MORE anthrax. Of course you also know that the equipment for growing anthrax is about the same as for brewing beer. So the fact that one former lab was destroyed is not an indicator of present capability. What about the intellegence we have about Iraqi mobile labs? Again I make the point that even the countries who oppose any immediate action including the French, the Germans, and the rest of the Security Council members who voted unanimously for UN 1441, NEVER dispute that Iraq had and has WMD's including anthrax. Of course unaccounted for VX, mustard munitions, and other weapons are also a concern and must be dealt with. [quote] 3) There is precious little evidence that Saddam has any WMD's other than what we gave him during the Iran-Iraq war. Let the inspectors do their jobs, and we'll revisit that point when the inspectors say "they aren't cooperating" - right now, G Dubya wants to go to war with Iraq - he's not interested in anything but excuses to go. [/quote]I don't see how you can ignore the fact that the original UN inspectors were COMPLETELY FOOLED BY SADDAM about their chem and bio weapons capability. Even though they looked. For years. They NEVER found the Iraqi programs. We only learned of it from Saddam's brother-in-law who defected. (He was the head of the program). Subsequently the Iraqi's admitted they DID have these weapons and precursers and yet have STILL not accounted for them. Why should they have to? Because THEY AGREED TO AT THE END OF THE GULF WAR, and again when THEY AGREED TO UN 1441. Couldn't the inspectors find them with a "little more time"? The original inspection team didn't find ANY. How much has the current team found? THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO FIND. SADDAM'S SUPPOSED TO SHOW. [quote] 4) Indeed, the Republican system of government (the U.S. was, at it's inception, a republic) is the most effective form of government in existence. My right to complain that this particular republic has been hijacked by those with wealth is one that is protected under our constitution. I can scream bloody murder that George Jr., Bill, George Sr., Ronnie, Jimmy, Gerald, and Dickie were all puppets for the corporate regimes that run this country, and there's not a thing those corporate regimes (or anyone else) can do about it. That's the one thing that I can say that I love about America - my right to tell the whole damned world how much our government SUCKS, knowing that, legally, there's not a damned thing G Dubya or anyone else can do about it.[/quote]Well, you're completely right about this one. In fact the number of nations in the world where there's some sort of democracy and freedom of speech has increased steadily in recent decades. In large part to the actions of the US. In spite of all the "bad" things we do, we also do a LOT of good in the world. BTW, my comment about "which country's citizen you would rather be" question was aimed at your "I don't trust either"... comment. My point is, given that you don't trust either... it's better to be distrustful and AMERICAN than it is to be distrustful and IRAQI. Including the fact you can shout out that distrust as loud and as long as you want here in the US! Just don't have it tattoo'd and go to the mall! :freak: guitplayer I'm still "guitplayer"! Check out my music if you like... http://www.michaelsaulnier.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOT Bolt Rifles Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 The Activist's Lexicon by M. Tuesday February 11, 2003 at 12:00 PM Activist's Dictionary Left wing activists use terminology with special meaning. Here are some of the frequently encountered terms with English translation: Anti-War Demonstrators People who think they're "sending a message" and "saving the world" by marching around with protest signs. Formerly called Hippies. Peace The result of a non intrusive type of hands-off foreign policy which seeks to appease regimes like the Nazis, Saddam, North Korea, and the Taliban. Quality Education Political payback to the Teacher's Union for their votes. Living wages The confiscation and redistribution of personal income by the government. Formerly called Socialism. Universal health care The confiscation and redistribution of personal income by the government. Formerly called Socialism. Civil liberties The lifting restrictions on terrorists Workers' rights Political payback to big labor for their votes. Economic equity The confiscation and redistribution of personal income by the government. Formerly called Socialism. Environmental protection Giving the spotted owl priority over ranchers, loggers, and drillers. Corporate Greed Free Enterprise and career attainment via the American dream. Corporate Media Regular Newspapers, TV Stations, and cable news outlets who endeavor to accurately report the news. Independent Media Organizations that tirelessly distribute left wing propoganda Unfair Perfectly legal and proper, but disadvantageous to my case. Fair Ignoring or bending the rules, advantageous to my case. Abuse of Power Republican efforts to apply the laws of the United States of America, and especially to protect our citizens from terrorism Public Opinion: What the liberal left thinks Boycott A destructive, infantile but sometimes politically beneficial tantrum invoked when democratic rules are followed. Morality: No listing found. Duty: No listing found. Patriotism: No listing found. Tax the rich: tax anyone with a job Deserving poor: People who vote for liberals Corporate welfare: Gross revenue minus taxes Welfare for the rich: What people have left after taxes Compassion: Generosity with other people's money Fair minded: Agrees with liberal agenda Closed-minded: Does not agree with liberal agenda Right wing extremist: Someone who voted Republican Fascist Republican Nazi Republican Direct Action A mob of street rabble carrying protest signs with slogans that whine and complain about those with opposing views 9/11 A joint venture between the CIA and Mossad US Imperialism MacDonalds opening another hamburger joint overseas Patriot Act Legal authorization for the government to round up, torture, and murder foreign nationals add your comments Ms by Stuart Overbey Tuesday February 11, 2003 at 01:29 PM "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -- John Adams "I am a senior member, and thereby entilted to all the privileges and rights accorded said status" -- NBR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.