Saint Johnny B Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 It seems the good folks in Britain have had enough of the "Big Lie" about Nukes that Tony Blair and Bush Crime Family passed off. The costs to the taxpayers are staggering as are the human costs. The US Marine I talked to said the "Number One Priority" and military objective was to protect and secure for Cheney's Halliburton the oil fields aptly named "Camp Shell" and "Camp Exxon." Shell and BP are obviously British companies, while Exxon is the American oil corporation. Soon the Americans will wake up ind discover the massive fraud, deception, lies, and looting going on at the White House, and they too will demand that Bush follow Blair's lead and resign. I also notice that the State of Oaklahoma has indicted several execs for the MCI fraud and scandal. Bush and Cheney could be brought into the latest crime sweep or face indictment for many other crimes. ------------------ Save the World Save America Jail Bush Now! You'll be glad you did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeebus Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 We can only hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sylver Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 Ummmmm, Tony Blair's aide resigned, not the PM himself. And quite a few of us are actually aware of the corruption in the government, and the fact that it is in bed with big business. See, we read the news, AND understand it. ;) I really don't know what to put here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Johnny B Posted August 31, 2003 Author Share Posted August 31, 2003 Are you sure? I'll admit I was groggy and half asleep when the news item came across the Fox news channel. Did I get it wrong or did it get misreported by Fox? But even if it is only his aide who resigned, it's like a rat jumping from a stinking and sinking ship. Dead bodies for oil, and red ink with no end in sight can only be tolerated for so long before the good folks wake up to the looting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nawor Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by Sylver: [b]Ummmmm, Tony Blair's aide resigned, not the PM himself...[/b][/quote]One could be forgiven for thinking Alastair Campbell has 'fallen on his sword'. [b]T.B.[/b] - "Thanks Alastair!" [b]A.C.[/b] - "I think I'll retire to Tuscany... who knows, in year or to I might even consider writing a book! Of course it depends who offers the best deal... the publisher to write it... or T.B. not to! Now what's the date of the next British election?" ;) You have to add the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, to the list of Bush and Blair. Our WMD (Weapons of Mass Deception) intelligence was also 'sexed' up by our Government. In fact as soon as Australia announced it was joining the 'Coalition of the Willing' to go and find these WDM's, an Intelligence Officer from the ONA (Office of National Asessments) resigned in protest and went public citing Government manipulation of the Intelligence reports the ONA was sending directly to the Government. A Government smear campaign against the said Intelligence Officer is well underway. Before long I'm sure there will be headlines claiming him to be a cocaine dealer and a paedophile. :rolleyes: "WARNING!" - this artificial fruit juice may contain traces of REAL FRUIT!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcolaent Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 "Soon the Americans will wake up and discover the massive fraud, deception, lies, and looting going on at the White House" ROFLMFAO *sigh* No we wont. America proved it's almost complete stupidity as a people thanks to Bush. I can't belive all the people that not only belive but defend that crooked jackass. What really sucks is that I'm a Texan and have to hear all the pro Bush bullshit everywhere I go. God bless America? If there is a God, He would have smote our lazy, greedy, arrogant, ignorant, hethenistic pagan asses a long time ago. If I was God and created all the people on this shit-hole planet I'm sure America would be my favorite and the one that I felt best represented me (*rolling eyes*). "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." Theodore Roosevelt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wow Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 Blair will not resign , he fired that guy and they say he resigned to let him save face, just like the GWB administration does, they dont public ally FIRE people, the "cable networks" would spin this shit to hell and back. Bush has Fired a few people, Ari , and the EPA chick. Did you notice she wanted to be with "her family". You dont take a job of that caliber and the cop out two years later, she was fired and Bush let her save face. Ari on the other hand had to go because of the "Assination and one bullet" theory he said at the WH briefing. Ari was good at his job. I HATE THE WH PRESS and ex specially that BITCH on the front row. She looks like DEATH on a plate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wow Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 If Blair resigns, it will not be because of GWB. It will be because Blair was a MAN and stood for what was right. History will vindicate Blair. Church-hill only served one term. Doing the right thing is not always popular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GZsound Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 Yes, some of us actually read the news and understand it. Very well put. Some of us actually post complete lies over and over and call it the truth. Here is a fact. During the first Gulf war, the Iraqi's set the oil fields on fire. This caused a massive environmental disaster and destroyed millions of dollars of a natural resource. So my liberal friends, by attacking the American military for guarding the oil fields you are stating that another massive oil field fire is what you hope for. You are stating you do not care for the environment in any way and much prefer the total destruction of our natural resources. Right? You cannot have it both ways kids... And remember those fair minded liberal fools that attacked the American military for guarding the oil fields while the museums were being looted? Protecting the oil for Cheney, right? Anybody still believe this? Anybody read the news about what actually happened to the treasures? It appears there is about 70% of the folks on this forum that believe any outrageous anti American statement made by their brethren. It is such a shame when the facts are readily available and rational thought is replaced by dogma. So, please, one of you, anybody, please tell me you really want an environmental disaster. Then tell me you wouldn't blame Mr. Bush for letting the oil fields burn. How sad.. Mark G. "A man may fail many times, but he isn't a failure until he begins to blame others" -- John Burroughs "I consider ethics, as well as religion, as supplements to law in the government of man." -- Thomas Jefferson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peake Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 >During the first Gulf war, the Iraqi's set the oil fields on fire. Yep. It's called "poisoning the well". When defeated, deny the victor exactly what he's after. Give me the ANALOG and no one gets HURT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tusker Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 Yes Peake. Throughout history, the defensive strategies are the same though the techniques vary. In M&A the poison pill comes in two forms. The [i]flip-in[/i] allows other existing shareholders to buy shares at a discount, thus diluting the acquiror's stake in the company. The [i]flip-out[/i] allows the other shareholders to buy out the acquiror's stock on a two for one basis. Incumbent management erects these provisions to protect itself from attack, not the shareholders, or the company. It's the poor man's defense. It's only cost is damage to the environment ... whether you are burning oil, or chewing up market value. Jerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alcohol Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 GZ, Johnny B jumped to a conclusion about a news broadcast he heard when emerging from sleep. That was the explanation I believe he made. His claim that Blair was going to resign is no more untrue than your claim that the finding that Al Aqaeda was linked to recent bombings confirms the Bush linkage to Saddam. At least JohnnyB recognized his mistake, a mistake he made in a semi comatose state. When are you going to have the same perspicacity? "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality." [Dante Alighieri] (1265-1321) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brittanylips Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 Just wondering -- is being half-asleep a neccessary precondition for supporting the war in Iraq? -Peace, Love, and Brittanylips Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alcohol Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 One needs to be fully conscious to recognize when one has made a mistake. "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality." [Dante Alighieri] (1265-1321) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offramp Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 "So my liberal friends, by attacking the American military for guarding the oil fields you are stating that another massive oil field fire is what you hope for. You are stating you do not care for the environment in any way and much prefer the total destruction of our natural resources. Right?" How did you arrive at THAT? I've upped my standards; now, up yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shniggens Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 Why don't you crybabies stick a cork in it. Wah, wah, wah. I mean, you could be living in Honduras: [img]http://www.msnbc.com/c/0/176/695/10x7/twip_2003_0828_02.jpg[/img] Amateur Hack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GZsound Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 [b]Originally posted by offramp: "So my liberal friends, by attacking the American military for guarding the oil fields you are stating that another massive oil field fire is what you hope for. You are stating you do not care for the environment in any way and much prefer the total destruction of our natural resources. Right?" How did you arrive at THAT?[/b] Fairly simple method. The posts regarding the military guarding "Camp Shell" and "Camp Exxon" oil fields because of the Bush/Cheney connection to big oil are plentiful on this forum. The reasoning seems to be that they are protecting the oil for the administration. During the first gulf war the oil fields were set on fire. It was considered an environmental disaster. So my question is simple. If you think our military is protecting the oil fields merely to make Bush/Cheney more money, should they stop protecting the oil fields? Is there a potential for more oil field fires? Should the military protect the environment and the natural resources? See, it is sort of a quandry for the extreme. You cannot have it both ways and the constant negative comments regarding every action our administration makes might backfire and force someone to actually think about what they are wishing for. I just was trying to force some logic amid all the rhetoric..however, I realize attacking me is much more fun... Mark G. "A man may fail many times, but he isn't a failure until he begins to blame others" -- John Burroughs "I consider ethics, as well as religion, as supplements to law in the government of man." -- Thomas Jefferson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peake Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 >Should the military protect the environment They're protecting the environment!? THAT is the latest republican spin? Please do a Google on Republican decimation of the EPA, environment laws, limiting liability judgements on corporations, etc., and see how they're protecting the environment right here at home. And wait, Iraq's oil is supposed to be worth 55 Billion dollars a day. A day. One could never suppose that this money has a single thing to do with "Protecting the environment". I've got a really nice bridge up in San Francisco to sell you, if you're buying that. Give me the ANALOG and no one gets HURT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtrmac Posted September 1, 2003 Share Posted September 1, 2003 The Bush family and their friends are all in the oil business. It doesn't take a genius to see the connection to the current U.S. foreign policy. There are quite a few 'evil' dictators running around the planet but only a few of them are sitting on huge oilfields and not playing games with the U.S. Saudi Arabia is not exactly an enlightened place for instance. Most of the 9/11 terrorists came from there but we have not declared war on them in spite of clear evidence of their support of terrorists. Wake up people! :wave: Mac Bowne G-Clef Acoustics Ltd. Osaka, Japan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GZsound Posted September 1, 2003 Share Posted September 1, 2003 [b]Originally posted by peake@pacificnet.net: Should the military protect the environment They're protecting the environment!? THAT is the latest republican spin? Please do a Google on Republican decimation of the EPA, environment laws, limiting liability judgements on corporations, etc., and see how they're protecting the environment right here at home.[/b] My point is that if the oil fields were allowed to burn again, the left wing extremists would be yelling about how the Bush administration only wants to poison the air. And I don't need to go a google search to see what the environmental extremists on the left have done to our environment. I can open a window and smell the smoke from the over one million acres of timber destroyed by fire mostly because of their lawsuits, protests, etc. Please don't come to Oregon and talk about what the Republicans have done to destroy the environment. We have farmers in the southern part of the state that can't irrigate their crops because of a trash fish the indians even destroyed on sight. We are the only state in the union that has two species of salmon, one hatchery raised and one wild. We club salmon to death here because we have too many and yet there is no fishing allowed. You really need to do a google search on what these extreme environmental wackos have done to our economy, our culture and our forests. And unless you feel it's right to pay twenty five bucks for your next Big Mac, somebody needs to put the brakes on the frivilous lawsuits that are costing all of us more money. Since your pals in the Democratic party are so deeply in bed with the American Trial Lawyers who will sue a ham sandwich if they think they can make money from it, there needs to be some protection and some control over product liability lawsuits. But then again, you probably are one of the really clever folks who think the big tobacco settlements actually cost the tobacco company, the stock holders and the CEO money..right? Are you so naive as to suggest the corporations actually pay for these silly lawsuits? Checked the cost of living recently? Checked CEO salaries recently? Checked stock values recently? We pay..us. The consumer. The guy that buys the Big Mac. We paid for the fat broad to spill her hot coffee on her crotch. The guy that buys the pack of cigarettes, he pays for the big tobacco lawsuit costs. When will you anti business, anti corporation wingnuts figure this out? You get on your soapbox about big business, big corporations, etc. but I never hear one of you complain about "big law firms". Name me one control over this plague on our society...just one. And these are the guys your party is sleeping with. Funny how you never mention that.. Mark G. "A man may fail many times, but he isn't a failure until he begins to blame others" -- John Burroughs "I consider ethics, as well as religion, as supplements to law in the government of man." -- Thomas Jefferson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alcohol Posted September 1, 2003 Share Posted September 1, 2003 "It was so cold last week that I saw several lawyers with their hands in their own pockets." ------------------ There was a young law student named Rex, who had very small organs of sex. When charged with exposure, he said with composure: "de minimis non curat lex." ---------------- Why does the law society prohibit sex between lawyers and their clients? To prevent clients from being billed twice for essentially the same service. ----------- `You seem to be in some distress,' said the kindly judge to the witness. `Is anything the matter?' `Well, your Honour,' said the witness, `I swore to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but every time I try, some lawyer objects.' "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality." [Dante Alighieri] (1265-1321) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peake Posted September 1, 2003 Share Posted September 1, 2003 I do agree, GZ, that law is out of control. I've heard that lots of recent predidents have law degrees.. Funny, that. Lawyers in the Oval Office. However, I'm not left-wing. I dislike all politics, and agree that lawyers should take other routes, and that laws should force said CEOs and corporations to pay judgements. I dislike irresponsibility and this is why I'm posting against Bush and cronies. >We club salmon to death here because we have too many and yet there is no fishing allowed. I love fresh salmon. No disrespect intended, but this sounds like a marketing opportunity to me. There are always exceptions to a rule, and I'm sorry to hear about issues in OR. I'm talking about the right wing's issues, which are just as bad or worse in their own right (as right now, the right wing is in office, so that's what I'm talking about). PS: I don't own a soapbox, or even tie them to my shoes. I do think that (on-topic!) Bush should resign. And in the spirit of changing laws which cause taxpayers to suffer for corporate misdeeds, to have Bush pay back the families of dead soldiers, and to return the Haliburton monies etc. They won't have to, will they, and that's why they are acting with impunity. The punishment for what they're doing is nothing... Give me the ANALOG and no one gets HURT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jotown Posted September 1, 2003 Share Posted September 1, 2003 Too bad that someone else didn't start this thread. That way some of you who are attacking the messenger just might have gotten the message. What is truly interesting here is that Tony Blair's feet are being held to the fire, and he is being forced by the power of Britans free press to be accountable. That is how it is supposed to work. Meanwhile here in America our president and his administration are pretty much getting a free pass on integrity by the American Media. One has to wonder why in England they are willing to go after the leadership at all costs to arrive at the truth. Yet here in the states it appears that the truth holds very little consequence for the powers that be. Free Press indeed. Jotown:) "It's all good: Except when it's Great" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offramp Posted September 2, 2003 Share Posted September 2, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by GZsound: [b][b]Originally posted by offramp: "So my liberal friends, by attacking the American military for guarding the oil fields you are stating that another massive oil field fire is what you hope for. You are stating you do not care for the environment in any way and much prefer the total destruction of our natural resources. Right?" How did you arrive at THAT?[/b] Fairly simple method. The posts regarding the military guarding "Camp Shell" and "Camp Exxon" oil fields because of the Bush/Cheney connection to big oil are plentiful on this forum. The reasoning seems to be that they are protecting the oil for the administration. During the first gulf war the oil fields were set on fire. It was considered an environmental disaster. So my question is simple. If you think our military is protecting the oil fields merely to make Bush/Cheney more money, should they stop protecting the oil fields? Is there a potential for more oil field fires? Should the military protect the environment and the natural resources? See, it is sort of a quandry for the extreme. You cannot have it both ways and the constant negative comments regarding every action our administration makes might backfire and force someone to actually think about what they are wishing for. I just was trying to force some logic amid all the rhetoric..however, I realize attacking me is much more fun...[/b][/quote]Again: how did you arrive at the notion that someone protesting the military guarding the oil fields is someone who is wishing for oil fires? How did you arrive at the notion that someone protesting the military guarding the oil fields is someone wishing for total destruction of environmental resources? Who stated that they 'did not care for the environment'? The "logic" you used for that is clearly assumptive; it assumes that if we weren't there, someone would be guaranteed to set the oil fields on fire. There's no guarantee of that; the last person to do it was the first person we ran out of town. How do you KNOW, with absolute certainty, that someone else would set fire to the oil fields? You DON'T. Oil is Iraq's greatest natural resource (unless you could somehow harness anger and confusion), and assuming that no Iraqi recognizes that and would move to protect it is HIGHLY specious; the last person to set fire to the fields was the last person to give a fuck, because he had enough money already...AND he was trying to save his own ass, to hell with his people. yes, there's a potential to have more fires. There's also the potential for them NOT to be set on fire. This is what I mentioned earlier about everything being 'cut and dried' with you. In this case, it's either 'fires' or 'environmental protection'...and no in-between. And the funny thing is, you've managed to tie in supporting big oil interests to being pro-environment. THAT is 'spin', and a classic example of it. Basically, 'if our troops weren't there supporting the financial future of a small group of rich men, our whole environment would go to shit'. No, I don't have 'more fun' attacking you, Mark. I don't 'have fun' attacking ANYONE. My nature doesn't really support it. I DO, however, try to understand your position from time to time; in doing so, I'm gonna ask some questions, maybe take you to task on what you say. Frankly, the more I read your posts on a variety of subjects, the more I understand why you piss so many people off on this forum. I also get more depressed each time; I think it's because you rarely seem to examine a grey area, preferring things black and white, leaving quite a bleak picture. I've upped my standards; now, up yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-brm Posted September 2, 2003 Share Posted September 2, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by Jotown: [b]Too bad that someone else didn't start this thread. That way some of you who are attacking the messenger just might have gotten the message. What is truly interesting here is that Tony Blair's feet are being held to the fire, and he is being forced by the power of Britans free press to be accountable. That is how it is supposed to work. Meanwhile here in America our president and his administration are pretty much getting a free pass on integrity by the American Media. One has to wonder why in England they are willing to go after the leadership at all costs to arrive at the truth. Yet here in the states it appears that the truth holds very little consequence for the powers that be. Free Press indeed.[/b][/quote]It's a good observation, but it is more a consequence of the parliamentary system of government than a bulldog news apparatus. The same system as most commonwealth countries requires the PM to take his lumps in person at the question and answer period. You should try to watch some - no handlers, no canned sound bites or staged audiences. They represent a local riding just like everyone else and in that respect are treated just like any back bencher. He better know what he's talking about or be an expert at dodging or he gets nailed to the wall and everyone knows it. PMs are definitely more available from week to week for interviews and questions of accountability. It's also a lot easier to get rid of an unpopular or incompetent PM before their term is out than for a President. Having a few more viable opposition parties in the U.S. would be a step in the right direction. It's OK to tempt fate. Just don't drop your drawers and moon her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogfur Posted September 2, 2003 Share Posted September 2, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by GZsound: [b] Here is a fact. During the first Gulf war, the Iraqi's set the oil fields on fire. [/b][/quote]Here's someone who doesn't agree with your fact - http://www.thepowerhour.com/postings-four/gulfwar-vet-admits-setting-oil-well-fires-under-UN-command.htm I'm not sure I agree that this really went down, but in my "follow the money" sniff test it seems there was no real advantage to the retreating Iraqi army swinging by the oil wells for a last bang. The Bush-the-smarter organization needed a good sales gimmick (remember the "Kuwaiti babies being ripped from incubators" nonsense?) and could actually gain from this type of thing. Again, its just an alternative viewpoint, not a "smoking gun", but kind of makes sense under scrutiny. Then again, what independent sources can varify the official story? Cheers, Dogfur Woof! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-brm Posted September 2, 2003 Share Posted September 2, 2003 An American soldier being taken to a briefing by a UN commander and then following their orders? That's a stretch. My favorite BS story is how the special forces rescued Jessica Lynch. Man, the book and movie deals must be phenomenal to keep the spin going on that one. It's OK to tempt fate. Just don't drop your drawers and moon her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GZsound Posted September 2, 2003 Share Posted September 2, 2003 [b]Originally posted by offramp: Again: how did you arrive at the notion that someone protesting the military guarding the oil fields is someone who is wishing for oil fires? How did you arrive at the notion that someone protesting the military guarding the oil fields is someone wishing for total destruction of environmental resources? Who stated that they 'did not care for the environment'? The "logic" you used for that is clearly assumptive; it assumes that if we weren't there, someone would be guaranteed to set the oil fields on fire. There's no guarantee of that; the last person to do it was the first person we ran out of town. How do you KNOW, with absolute certainty, that someone else would set fire to the oil fields? You DON'T. Oil is Iraq's greatest natural resource (unless you could somehow harness anger and confusion), and assuming that no Iraqi recognizes that and would move to protect it is HIGHLY specious; the last person to set fire to the fields was the last person to give a fuck, because he had enough money already...AND he was trying to save his own ass, to hell with his people.[/b] I apologize for being unclear. I was trying to make a point about outrageous statements. I was trying to point out that the current administration simply cannot win in these discussions and charges. It has nothing to do with fires or oil wells. My point is about the general attitude on this forum that everything is a lie. That everything the administration does is wrong and will be attacked, no matter which way it turns out. Guarding oil wells gets attacked for having the military protecting Bush/Cheney oil connections. Letting the wells burn gets attacked because the Bush/Cheney administration doesn't care for the environment. I was trying to use an analogy. I have no idea if the oil wells were set on fire by Iraqi's, by secret agents working directly for Mr. Bush or my Mickey Mouse.. Obviously there is an internet article out on how each of the above caused the fires.. This is my point. Making inflamitory statements with little or no bearing in fact seems to be the de rigor standard here. Read the post titles. It is almost a game of who can make the most outrageous charge and how many simply accept the preposition at face value. [b]This is what I mentioned earlier about everything being 'cut and dried' with you. In this case, it's either 'fires' or 'environmental protection'...and no in-between.[/b] Again, I was not clear in my intent. It is not about fires or environmental protection. It can be about environmental protection but only if the attacks against this administration become over the top. At that point I usually bring up difficulties the "other side" have caused to try to bring some balance to the discussion. For example, if I read a statement about Mr. Bush and how he is destroying the environment, I might call it partisan rhetoric. Since it contains no attempt at balance or fairness, there is no discussion of the difficulties both extreme groups have caused, I consider it political driven partisan drivel and usually call it such. Thus it always appears the world is black and white to me, although I frequently try to interject the facts that all politicians are corrupt, all politicians are in some corporation or union back pocket and to just blame "the other party" is silly. [b]No, I don't have 'more fun' attacking you, Mark. I don't 'have fun' attacking ANYONE. My nature doesn't really support it. I DO, however, try to understand your position from time to time; in doing so, I'm gonna ask some questions, maybe take you to task on what you say. Frankly, the more I read your posts on a variety of subjects, the more I understand why you piss so many people off on this forum. [/b] I know exactly why I piss off so many people on this forum. When most of the posters support outrageous liberal personal attacks. When any liberal on this list can say anything bad about our administration, our military, our president, etc. and only a couple of us say.."wait a minute", then I totally understand why I piss off a lot of the posters. I just rode into a Harley rally on my BMW. I just walked into a Seventh Day Adventist church with my monks robes on and my ghetto blaster on 10. I just walked into a hard rock band jam with my accordian strapped on. Any person of even tiny intelligence would simply leave this list to the partisans who can preach to each other about the antichrist until they are all in euphoria. I have a life, I have my music, my bands, my studio, my family. I don't need the partisan crap spewed by the chronically hate filled. However, I find it refreshing and quite fun to find the logical errors in the extreme liberal mind. Besides, if over 70 percent of this list can make complete baseless idiotic partisan groundless charges that are so over the top as to be laughable, and hardly anybody calls bullshit, why can't you accept my lone little voice of dissent? [b]I also get more depressed each time; I think it's because you rarely seem to examine a grey area, preferring things black and white, leaving quite a bleak picture.[/b] No offense, but "should we jail Bush or impeach him" is somewhat less than a "grey area" topic. "Bush Lied" etc. are all black and white issues. The extreme liberal has no grey area, or grey matter, of any kind. Why is it not all right for me to be the antithesis of the extreme left who seem to make up a majority of this forum? Usually to get a jackass to pay attention you need a two by four. Logical discussion won't budge him. I appreciate the fact I will change no attitudes on this list. I will not have any extreme liberal suddenly say "gee, I guess that was a little over the top", and I won't effect the thought processes of anybody who posts on this list. Everybody is firmly set in stone. So why not sit back, relax and enjoy the conversation? Do you think anything we have discussed on this list is at all meaningful? Do you think for one minute it will make a difference? Do you actually think the extreme hatred you read on this list is at all going to make a difference? HA.. I work with my city budget committee. I work on the community economic development committee, I am a member of the local chamber of commerce, I actually try to make a difference in ways that can help. I would make a bet there are very few on this list that actually DO anything to make our country a better place..it's all whining..negative attack crap. Helps nobody. This list is just recreation for me. We are all taking ourselves way to seriously... Mark G. "A man may fail many times, but he isn't a failure until he begins to blame others" -- John Burroughs "I consider ethics, as well as religion, as supplements to law in the government of man." -- Thomas Jefferson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brittanylips Posted September 2, 2003 Share Posted September 2, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by GZsound: [b] Making inflamitory statements with little or no bearing in fact seems to be the de rigor standard here. [/b][/quote]Many dispassionate thinkers have concluded that the same applies to the Bush administration leading up to the war. [quote]Originally posted by GZsound: [b] Thus it always appears the world is black and white to me, although I frequently try to interject the facts that all politicians are corrupt, all politicians are in some corporation or union back pocket ....[/b][/quote]Ironic -- You complain about those whose perspective is black and white, followed by a black and white notion of your own. It is hardly a "fact" that all politicians are corrupt. Some are, some are not. There are honest and committed politicians on all sides. To say otherwise, is to mispercieve the world as black and white. -Peace, Love, and Brittanylips Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Bryce Posted September 2, 2003 Share Posted September 2, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by GZsound: [b]I know exactly why I piss off so many people on this forum. When most of the posters support outrageous liberal personal attacks. When any liberal on this list can say anything bad about our administration, our military, our president, etc. and only a couple of us say.."wait a minute", then I totally understand why I piss off a lot of the posters. I just rode into a Harley rally on my BMW. I just walked into a Seventh Day Adventist church with my monks robes on and my ghetto blaster on 10. I just walked into a hard rock band jam with my accordian strapped on. Any person of even tiny intelligence would simply leave this list to the partisans who can preach to each other about the antichrist until they are all in euphoria. I have a life, I have my music, my bands, my studio, my family. I don't need the partisan crap spewed by the chronically hate filled. However, I find it refreshing and quite fun to find the logical errors in the extreme liberal mind. Besides, if over 70 percent of this list can make complete baseless idiotic partisan groundless charges that are so over the top as to be laughable, and hardly anybody calls bullshit, why can't you accept my lone little voice of dissent? [/b][/quote]Since you asked... First of all, you're not "lone" - Mr. Wow is with you! So are a few others. I imagine it's kind of fun to see yourself as the "lone little voice of dissent", but it ain't the case. Secondly, not everyone who disagrees with you is a "liberal", a term which somehow seems to make it into the vast majority of politically-related posts you put up, and always seems to be doled out with more than a modicum of of vitriol. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a "liberal", Mark. Based on some pretty decent evidence, some of us suspect that it's very possible we've been completely bullshitted and manipulated so that some very rich people can get a lot richer, and we're asking questions. There's nothing wrong with that. Thirdly, for someone who accuses others of negativity, your posts are consistently among the most bitter and hate-filled of any that I've read. Lastly, (from my POV anyway), your arguments would hold more credibility were you to be at all flexible and maybe just a little open to the fact that you and the other staunch Bush supporters may be in error - even if it is just a bit here and there. You seem to be an intelligent man, and I can't help but wonder if even you suspect that your beloved President and his administration are, in fact, not being...shall we say...entirely straight with the American public. dB ==> David Bryce Music • Funky Young Monks <== Professional Affiliations: Royer Labs • Music Player Network Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.