tonedef said:
Please go read a book. Bush is the worst president since Taft. Unfortunately a majority of these posts just show how uninformed Americans really are. The economy is horrible, more people are unemployed than ever, and our civil rights are in trouble; so to say that Bush isn't a push over is true you will never be able to push him to help the working class American.

It's funny how unemployment is lower now than 1996, when, to listen to the left, you would have thought we had the most incredible economy in recorded history. And I don't know what your personal views are, but too many lefties lecture the right about disappearing civil rights when they seem to stop at nothing to eliminate my Second Amendment rights. Such people are severely ill-informed at best.
 
Sorry I wasn't gonna make anymore posts but this one is different from what I was talking about earlier.

As far as the flyovers in Canada looking for grow houses. That has been our enemy for awhile now. Before they would try to spot the grow houses by getting the power company to looks for surges per KWh happening frequently throughout the day in a household. Now since everyone who grows is on stolen power they can no longer track this way. Also there are ways to counter attack flyovers using heat vision. People are catching on so they are going to have to find a new way to stop the growers. Also for those caught growing the penalties aren't that high anyways. Californians move up to BC for the sole purpose of growing as housing was pretty cheap.

You have to look at it from all angles however. Back in March there were about 10,000 grow operations happening where I live. I live in a suburb just out side a metropolis city. There were way many in the actual city. This was back in March so by now there would have to be a lot more. All throughout Canada grow ops are popping up daily. So many growops that the price has gone down drastically but the quality keeps getting more intense.

I was watching the local news almost a year ago and they were stating this was getting to be a big problem. The growers all competing for the best product shot the THC level over 30%. This would be any american pot smokers dream as the best stuff down there isnt half that potent. I see the americans coming through the city and suberbs in search of the best stuff willing to pay $5,000US per lb!. So you can see why so many ops would be popping up with that kind of profit margin from our neighboors.

Its gonna get to the point where the cities are gonna realize there is no way to stop these ops. For every one they shut down 10 more will pop up.

As far as it never happening in the US, it probably never would as most Americans just head up north for the best stuff. One thing America has that Canada doesn't is that act where they are allowed to search your house while you are gone and they don't have to tell you they were even there. All part of the "Fight on Terrorism". Because if you aren't with the gov't, then you are a terrorist. I doubt Canada would ever pass something like this. I seen this document on video also on different parts of the net. Also seen someone talking about it on a news special, I think it was BBC.
 
Shithead said:
the kind of intelligence i'm talking of is people who think for themselves.

they use books, people, education not to create an understanding for them but to aid them in creating their own understanding.

what im trying to say is really really hard to explain.

Oh please. I've never heard that one come from a lefty before. :s

I find it incredibly ironic that you claim that people that think for themselves would vote for John Kerry vs. people that don't. How many people voted for John Kerry because of Michael Moore or because celebrities said to? And who was telling me to vote for Bush and not think for myself? And what gives you the impression that I don't think for myself, that I rely on books, people and education to think for me? I think you have it backwards, and I also think you're a moron, because you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

As I said, it's a difference in political thought and morals.
 
Last edited:
Yeah thanks for telling me I have been brainwashed. I can't compete with a bunch of left-wing conformists anyhow. Also, just because your IQ is 155 doesn't mean your are knowledgeable, it just means that you think like everyone else that took that IQ test, congratulations.

I'm done bash me as much as you want. Go on believe lies, enjoy invasion of privacy with the Patriot Act, Privatized Social Security, and more religion than you can handle making laws at he supreme court and Presidential level.

Yeah and make sure to use the Micheal Moore slam when you read this, because he brainwashed me and so did the Liberal Media. Please help me to think like you.
 
Sit down and watch fahrenheit 911 and then fahrenhype 911 in the same evening. Compare the information and draw your on conclusions (hint: the truth lies in the middle, and its not hard truth).

Now the idea of cops entering my home and looking around sends my into a rage! I shit you not. I am not a fan of the police. Often they are worse than criminals and I do not trust or respect most cops. Here is some info on those 'sneak and peek warrents'.
------------------------------------------------------------------
By a stunning 309-118 vote, the House of Representatives on July 22, reflecting a growing apprehension about the USA Patriot act around the country, voted to deny funding for a key section of that act. Before that move, at least 142 cities and towns and three state legislatures, have passedstrongresolutions against the Patriot Act.
The action by the House is the first time either chamber of Congress has voted to revoke any part of the act. The size of the overwhelming bipartisan vote reflects the concern many members are hearing from their constituents across the country about diminishing individual liberties under the act — with the attorney general working on an even more invasive Patriot Act II.
The House — in the amendment to the appropriations bill for the Commerce, State and Justice departments — focused on Section 213 of the Patriot Act, which is actually called the "sneak-and-peek" provision in the legislation. The section gives federal law enforcement agencies the power to enter a home or office while the occupant is elsewhere. A warrant is still required, but under a lower evidentiary standard than before the act was passed.
During the covert search, agents can take photographs,seize physical property, examine a computer's hard drive and insert the digital "magic lantern," also known as the "sniffer keystroke logger." Once installed, the program creates a record of every stroke you make, whether you transmit it over the Internet or not. On another unannounced "sneak-and-peak" search, the agents can download that information — which constitutes an additional government invasion of what's left of your privacy.
The House amendment ending funding (not yet addressed by the Senate) is aimed at Section 213's delay in notifying the occupants that their premises have been searched. With few exceptions, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure have required that agents leave a copy of the warrant and a receipt of confiscated items where the property was taken.
That way, you and your lawyer can immediately challenge the search. The agents may have had the wrong address, wrong name or exceeded the limits of the warrant in what they took.
Limited notification delays have been allowed in the past if, for example, there is danger that the occupant will flee prosecution. But Section 213 expands these delays to 90 days or, if a judge agrees, longer. These secret searches apply not only to alleged national security probes, but also to any criminal investigation.
This amendment — a historic reminder that the British "general search warrant" was a precipitating cause of the AmericanRevolution—is co-sponsored by Republican libertarian Rep. Ron Paul (Texas); Democrat and presidential candidate Rep. Dennis Kucinich (Ohio); and Republican Rep. C.L. "Butch" Otter (Idaho). Of the 309 votes favoring the measure, 113 were Republicans.
Mr.Otter, a rancher and strong advocate of gun and property rights, was the driving force in this amendment that Sam Adams would have called patriotism. "Congress is joining the American people and coming to its senses," Mr. Otter says. "This is just the beginning of a crusade to which more and more of my colleagues are rallying.
"I completely understand the passion that gripped us all as the smoke was still rising from the ruins in New York and here in Washington," Mr. Otter says. "Who would not feel compelled to act, with the cries of victims and their families still ringing in our ears? But this law (the USA Patriot Act) goes too far, and in doing so, it gives our enemies the kind of victory they could never win on their own."
The Justice Department will, of course, use all of its political resources to kill a similar measure in the Senate. Already, Justice officials have attempted to malign this significant measure by calling it the "terrorist tipoff amendment." If the House rebellion against the overreaching of the Patriot Act survives a joint conference meeting between the House and Senate, President Bush will decide whether to sign or veto the vigorous bipartisan House defense of this crucial American liberty.
When James Otis of Boston spoke in the King's court in Massachusetts in 1761 against the sweeping British searches of colonial homes and businesses, he lost the case. But John Adams, who was in the courtroom, noted: "Then and there the child Independence was Born."
Now, more than two centuries later, it is Mr. Otter's hope that "with this amendment we begin the process of regaining the title of a nation of people who are fit for liberty" — and, under the Constitution, will be safe and free.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

So anyway...you know, our elected representatives, the Aclu, and media will help to keep things in check without going nuts and giving away everything like some drunken whore i.e. democratically controlled white house and congress, IMHO.
p.s. No offense to drunken whores, God love em. rofl
 
Everything turned out how I wished except for some of the amendments in Florida. One passed to raise the minimum wage $1.00! That's ridiculous. People just think that money comes out of the air or somethin because businesses are gonna let people go and raise prices now. Governer Bush is trying to let us vote to repeal it. Another stupid amendment is that 3 malpractices and doctors lose their licenses. Thanx for scaring even more doctors out of Florida. A lot of doctors have already left because of the damn ambulance chasing attornies. All the damn lawyers propose all these amendments for them to make more money. We had like 4 on this years ballot that would eiether hurt or help lawyers. At leats one passed to limit their fees to 30% instead of near 50%. I'm glad one amendment passed that will make it harder to put amendments on the constitution because people are abusing it. 2 years ago an amendment passed regulating the housing for pigs on farms. So now farmers had to buy a lot more land but instead they just shut down or left. Seriously what the fuck do pigs have to do with the constitution. I'm sick of all these liberal amendments screwin up everything.
 
tonedef said:
Yeah thanks for telling me I have been brainwashed. I can't compete with a bunch of left-wing conformists anyhow. Also, just because your IQ is 155 doesn't mean your are knowledgeable, it just means that you think like everyone else that took that IQ test, congratulations.

I'm done bash me as much as you want. Go on believe lies, enjoy invasion of privacy with the Patriot Act, Privatized Social Security, and more religion than you can handle making laws at he supreme court and Presidential level.

Yeah and make sure to use the Micheal Moore slam when you read this, because he brainwashed me and so did the Liberal Media. Please help me to think like you.

Wow. I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to Shithead. But take offense if you want. Shit man, Why does it have to be that one side is brainwashed and can't think for themselves (which is what you obviously think of me, which is also bullshit)? I've been saying the whole time, IT'S A DIFFERENCE IN POLITICAL IDEAS AND MORALS. It doesn't have anything to do with brainwashing.

Your IQ argument is invalid, sorry. I was making a point that IQ has nothing to do with elections. I don't care if my IQ is 155 or if it's 95. That has nothing to do with who I am or what my thoughts are on politics or anything else. It has only to do with how well I scored on a test. You seemed to miss the point that I was making, which was that IQ is unrelated to my choice of president. But do not insult my intelligence. We simply happen to differ on our political beliefs. I won't get into an "I'm more intelligent/educated/knowledgeable than you" pissing contest with you. I'm done with this argument.
 
All that stuff with lawyers and malpractice suits and buisness' being run out of buisness really gets complex...I know theres a way to balance all that. I think it starts with honesty and giving the public all the relevant information. It would help if the 'news' outlets wouldnt sensationalize stories to keep viewers interest. You wont be able to please everyone either. Life has a hard edge to it, you know?

As for intelligence, you have to factor in the quality of life someone has put together for themselves and their families and the way they treat others. Simply being able to blather on about Proust or quantum mechanics doesnt prove squat. Do you know how difficult and scientific running a farm is, or fixing a carburator, or building a house? Do you know how easy it is to sit down and read through The Dialogues of Plato or Chomsky's latest childish rant, and then puke it back up for some 'we're smarter than the red states crowd'?.

As far as our MODS censoring things. Those guys seem pretty cool and hip to free speech so I dont believe thats what happened.

Putting together a successful web enterprise is no easy feat either I might add. I wonder who DLD voted for?
 
bush is making the country happier through ignorance.

im not going to argue anymore because people have alread made up their minds.

i will keep reading this thread though, because unlike lots of people here, i completly welcome the possibility of my opinion being changed. i am more interested in creating a better understanding for myself rather than just trying to prove people wrong.
 
Shafty said:
Ahh... that I did indeed! How stupid of me to think that such a post may have been censored by the mods.

I censor nothing.

I believe people can say what they want. I enjoy debates with intelligent people especially ones with a totally different view on an issue. That way I can learn from them, and maybe they learn from me.

If it is complete spam I will move it to its respectful place. I won't sensor anything no matter how personal or ignorrant, it will just take me a longer time to understand that person.
 
Shithead said:
bush is making the country happier through ignorance.

im not going to argue anymore because people have alread made up their minds.

i will keep reading this thread though, because unlike lots of people here, i completly welcome the possibility of my opinion being changed. i am more interested in creating a better understanding for myself rather than just trying to prove people wrong.

I can tell you hate bush dearly which would put you with the other 49% of the US. What I don't understand is how Kerry would be any better.

How can you hate a man who simply follows orders. Kerry would have orders to follow if he was the president. His goals would be very similiar only he would go about achieving them in a more sneaky manner.

On issues such as this it is best to think outside the box and research from there. You will always get the wrong answers when you ask the wrong questions.
 
Bib said:
Never before in US history has a sitting leader been hit from so many different angles, and survived.

Not true, I did:D
 
Bib said:
Never before in US history has a sitting leader been hit from so many different angles, and survived.
I know it's crazy. The redskins lost, bush was shorter, and there was an increased voter turnout which always leads to a democratic victory.
 
kausion_420 said:
I can tell you hate bush dearly which would put you with the other 49% of the US. What I don't understand is how Kerry would be any better.

How can you hate a man who simply follows orders. Kerry would have orders to follow if he was the president. His goals would be very similiar only he would go about achieving them in a more sneaky manner.

On issues such as this it is best to think outside the box and research from there. You will always get the wrong answers when you ask the wrong questions.

just because i hate bush doesn't mean i support kerry. im not from america, but i would have voted for kerry, because in my opinion, getting bush out is top priority, and voting for kerry would be the best bet at that. the lesser of two evils.
 
Hate. God you Kerry fans love to use that word. Sometimes I think that you just need to hate. You start by hateing the best among us and move on down the line until your alone, hateing yourself.

Dont be a hater shithead.

George Bush do will do good by the people of Earth, youll see :-)
 
copper_handshak said:
Hate. God you Kerry fans love to use that word. Sometimes I think that you just need to hate. You start by hateing the best among us and move on down the line until your alone, hateing yourself.

Dont be a hater shithead.

George Bush do will do good by the people of Earth, youll see :-)

i see your point, starting war is a great anti-hate action.
 
He did not start a war. The U.S. and her allies disposed of a Evil man. Worse than Hitler in many ways. There are many good, noble reasons for going into Iraq.
People, bad people, have been lying to you about Iraq for the very selfish reason of regaining power in Washington D.C.
Iraq had to happen. Most Iraqis are so relieved that someone finally stepped up and said ENOUGH! You dont see all the good thats happening in Iraq. The bad selfish people dont tell you about that. If they did, you would not hate George Bush and his administration. The bad selfish people want you to hate. They control you by feeding your desire to hate, and giving you their hand picked target-Bush.
Watch and see Iraq come alive with democracy. Live with freedom from Saddam. Watch and see the bad people moan every step of the way, encourageing you to hate. Telling you lies. Dont listen. This current U.S. administration is good. Iraq was just.
 
copper_handshak said:
He did not start a war. The U.S. and her allies disposed of a Evil man. Worse than Hitler in many ways. There are many good, noble reasons for going into Iraq.
People, bad people, have been lying to you about Iraq for the very selfish reason of regaining power in Washington D.C.
Iraq had to happen. Most Iraqis are so relieved that someone finally stepped up and said ENOUGH! You dont see all the good thats happening in Iraq. The bad selfish people dont tell you about that. If they did, you would not hate George Bush and his administration. The bad selfish people want you to hate. They control you by feeding your desire to hate, and giving you their hand picked target-Bush.
Watch and see Iraq come alive with democracy. Live with freedom from Saddam. Watch and see the bad people moan every step of the way, encourageing you to hate. Telling you lies. Dont listen. This current U.S. administration is good. Iraq was just.

you are full of crap in so many ways i don't know where to start.

saddam is not worse than hitler, you an idiot for even suggesting that.
your right, bad people have been lying to us about iraq, #1 is bush.
whats all this crap you say about "good" happening in iraq, i see 10's of thousands of innocent people killed, and then you say i've got a "hate" problem.
and you can't make a country a democracy just like that. theres two things you need for a democracy, 1 is a country, 2 is a couple of hundred years.

saddam was a tyrant, no question, but there are better ways of going about it than what was done. the way it was handled was for america to benefit the most, america number 1 priority. it should have been for iraq to benefit most, and iraq at top priority.
 
kausion_420 said:
I censor nothing.

I believe people can say what they want. I enjoy debates with intelligent people especially ones with a totally different view on an issue. That way I can learn from them, and maybe they learn from me.

If it is complete spam I will move it to its respectful place. I won't sensor anything no matter how personal or ignorrant, it will just take me a longer time to understand that person.

I know. My bad; of course it wouldn't get censored here. I actually posted it in another thread and thought I had posted it here for some reason. Not that it was disrespectful, untactful or profane- it's just that the first thought which came to mind was that since the majority of active posters here seem to be behind Bush, one of the mods may have deleted it.
I should know better than that...
 
iraqwar.JPG


funny yet true.
 
Shithead, there was a multi year build up to that war. Every world leader at one time or another supported the over throw and liberation of Iraq. Those are not statements based on fiction or idiocy. They are facts.

With a willing populace, democracies are born virtually over night. Iraq has that willing populace. It will happen for them!!! The left will choke on that great accomplishment and immediately turn around and say 'oh yea, what have you done for us lately?'

10,000s of thousands have died. Hundreds of thousands would have died. Most of the 10,000s were not innocents. Hype that all you want, but it is truth.

As far Saddam, I said in many ways he was worse than Hitler. Saddams brutality while on a smaller scale was more vicious and random than Hitlers. Saddam was a brutal psycho, Hitler was a driven madman.

Take it easy shithead. :-)
 
copper_handshak said:
Shithead, there was a multi year build up to that war. Every world leader at one time or another supported the over throw and liberation of Iraq. Those are not statements based on fiction or idiocy. They are facts.

With a willing populace, democracies are born virtually over night. Iraq has that willing populace. It will happen for them!!! The left will choke on that great accomplishment and immediately turn around and say 'oh yea, what have you done for us lately?'

10,000s of thousands have died. Hundreds of thousands would have died. Most of the 10,000s were not innocents. Hype that all you want, but it is truth.

As far Saddam, I said in many ways he was worse than Hitler. Saddams brutality while on a smaller scale was more vicious and random than Hitlers. Saddam was a brutal psycho, Hitler was a driven madman.

Take it easy shithead. :-)

your statements are so full of it. it sounds like your just ranting your opinion rather than telling facts.

you saying that every single world leader wants the liberation of iraq? thats a huge claim. i doubt you can back it up.

you couldn't be further from the truth when you say democracies are born over night, you sound like a fool when you say that.

you say iraq is a willing populace. once again your a fool. in case you didn't know, iraq is made up of 3 very hostile groups, the kurds, the sunnis and the shi-ites. while independent of each other they might like their own democracy, but you think they're gonna just welcome america forcing them to all one democracy.

bah, im not gonna bother with you anymore, you don't know what your talking about.
 
Shafty said:
I think he was referring to the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq. The first one was justified IMO, but the second one was (and will be since there seems to be no end to it) bullshit for the lack of a better word to describe it.

That's what I had to assume. Personally, I supported the Iraq war, but there is no denying it has been a difficult, costly campaign. I can understand that whole matter being up for debate.

However, I don't know what hopful expected the U.S. to do after 9/11. Personally, I find his suggestion that a response to 9/11 was a selfish action by the Bush Administration to be insulting. We had 3,000 people die. By and large, most were not soldiers or military employees, but office workers. So, they weren't German? I'm sorry this guy then fails to put it in perspective, or maybe he is so steeped with anti-Americanism that he really doesn't feel much for those victims. But the idea a response was selfish or unwarranted is ludicrous. His own government sent troops to Afghanistan to support the effort. I hope he didn't think that statement through very well, or else he's quite far removed from reality.
 
My thoughts are this.
From what I've seen with regards to both Bush and Kerry, I woudlnt have voted for either, so its kinda a lose lose situation anyways as they both seemed shiet.
I have MANY thoughts on this, but wont go into it as I aint the time nor the effort to be arsed, but I aint happy with Bush being back......the UK as alot of you will know MUST follow what the USA says, which is pathetic but thats how it goes, we act like the puppy dog and the US thinks its the master.
The ONLY Prime Minister who stood their ground with the yanks was Thatcher, since than lol they all licked the yank ass.
I'm worried with Bush, cos he'l get the UK into more SHIT, we didnt have to go into this war and I WISH WE HAD NOT......but now were in we MUST BACK the US and finish it, I'm for that as I dont belive in running away from something you start, but with Bush back it can only mean more wars and more shit for the UK.
Some talk has been around, that alot of the UK has indeed wanted to VOTE in this US Election, as it EFFECTS THE UK B I G T I M E, because whatever leader the US gets, has a MASSIVE, well H U G E influence on our weak leaders here....we need a stronger leader ourself who wont entertain the US like we do and have.....Howard from the Conservatives looks the onlyone ATM.
So thats why you may hear alot of talk over the pond from the Brits about Bush, i.e in the BBC and the papers ect as he effects us over here and I DO NOT LIKE THAT, the US has NO rights to keep dragging us into its wars, which they did with this albeit Blair said yea, but hes a weak fucker anyways and would sell his granny for a tenner.
I have NOTHING AT ALL Agaisnt the USA, I have been their and its nice ect with nice people but I dont want my country getting entangled into their dirty washing, putting is in danger from the terrorists....it seems the US thinls the UK has somesort of DUTY to always follow her, when infact she doesnt....but we always do anyway or 9 times outta 10 we do. This must stop if the UK is to live in peace, it wont while Bush is in power unless we get a new PM whos STRONG and says NO to the USA.
 
penguinsfan said:
That's what I had to assume. Personally, I supported the Iraq war, but there is no denying it has been a difficult, costly campaign. I can understand that whole matter being up for debate.

However, I don't know what hopful expected the U.S. to do after 9/11. Personally, I find his suggestion that a response to 9/11 was a selfish action by the Bush Administration to be insulting. We had 3,000 people die. By and large, most were not soldiers or military employees, but office workers. So, they weren't German? I'm sorry this guy then fails to put it in perspective, or maybe he is so steeped with anti-Americanism that he really doesn't feel much for those victims. But the idea a response was selfish or unwarranted is ludicrous. His own government sent troops to Afghanistan to support the effort. I hope he didn't think that statement through very well, or else he's quite far removed from reality.

Yep, I wasn't really surprised, angry or anything when the U.S invaded Afghanistan. After all, it's not like they had a real government or any social structures that would have suffered from the invasion, and even if they had, the retaliation was needed and justified. That's where the main concentration of Al Qaeda forces was at the time, so the attack was a perfectly understandable course of action for the U.S. I guess at that point it wasn't known how widespread and pocketed the whole terrorist network was, since it seems that Al Qaeda is still very much active. I do hope to see the day when it is rooted out and destroyed for good, but I'm also being realistic in that it may never happen unless the U.S changes it's current foreign policy drastically.
My fingers are crossed for Bush to be more cooperative with Europe and the rest of the world in his second term. I think it will take the combined efforts of all the nations of the west to fight terrorism effectively, and most importantly, fight the very reasons why terrorism exists in the first place.
 
This is perhaps the NEXT British PM http://www.michaelhowardmp.com/ cant be anyworse than Blair and MOST IMPORTANT and relavant to this thread, wont do as the US leader says.....Howard has SAID he WILL NOT bow to the US.

I like Robert Kilroy-Silk the best http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3383875.stm The National Party, give him say another 4 years or so and they'll be a force....hes against the UK being ran by europe aka Brussells which Blair wants and also Against the US leaders saying do this and do that.

At least Blair aint long in power here, he wont get in again as hes hated here by his people, the fuckin sack of shit.....these two men I mentioned are STRONG leaders who are FOR BRITAIN, they wont do what Blair does and bow down all the time to US rulers.
 
Shithead said:
so an american citizen is more important than any other race on earth?

First, being American is a nationality, not a race. If you are going to engage in politcial debate you really should learn the difference- it is kinda important. We have numerous races that make up our country and they are all equally important, and all equally American. That said, the safety of the American people is the most important thing for our President to consider. I do not know what country you are from, but I would suspect your leader is most concerned with the people of your country (as he/she should be).

Shithead, unless you are an American or an Iraqi, I don't know why you are griping about Bush. Bush acted in the security of our country- that is his job.

I understand what Red is saying, but he is displeased with Blair for going with the US in this thing. That is his call and perfectly within his right. It sucks that the Brits can't vote directly for PM.
 
Texan said:
First, being American is a nationality, not a race. If you are going to engage in politcial debate you really should learn the difference- it is kinda important. We have numerous races that make up our country and they are all equally important, and all equally American. That said, the safety of the American people is the most important thing for our President to consider. I do not know what country you are from, but I would suspect your leader is most concerned with the people of your country (as he/she should be).

Shithead, unless you are an American or an Iraqi, I don't know why you are griping about Bush. Bush acted in the security of our country- that is his job.

I understand what Red is saying, but he is displeased with Blair for going with the US in this thing. That is his call and perfectly within his right. It sucks that the Brits can't vote directly for PM.

i agree with what your saying but its only coz you've misinterpreted what i meant. yes i was refering to a nation not race, oops words got mixed up who cares. and yes its obvious the leader of a country should be most interested in their own country.
but the way whoever said it before was like to anyone on earth they should all place america more important than anything else. which is bs.
 
Shithead said:
i agree with what your saying but its only coz you've misinterpreted what i meant. yes i was refering to a nation not race, oops words got mixed up who cares. and yes its obvious the leader of a country should be most interested in their own country.
but the way whoever said it before was like to anyone on earth they should all place america more important than anything else. which is bs.
I'm not even gonna bother explaining anythign cuz you'll never understand anything.
 
Bigd5903 said:
I'm not even gonna bother explaining anythign cuz you'll never understand anything.

no please do explain yourself, im all ears.

you clearly said "Our safety is more important that anything". i interpret that to mean that america's safety is more important than my life, than my whole country, more important than poverty, more important than the lives of every single person who is not american, more important than absolutly ANYTHING as you put it.

please tell me if i've misinterpreted you.
 
oops words got mixed up who cares

You sure cut yourself alot of slack when it comes to words dont ya shithead? Oh well, who cares?

you clearly said "Our safety is more important that anything". i interpret that to mean that america's safety is more important than my life, than my whole country, more important than poverty, more important than the lives of every single person who is not american, more important than absolutly ANYTHING as you put it.

The reason you interpret things that way is because it makes it easy for you to be what? HATEful.

Shithead, you would destroy all those different from you in a second if you could get away with it. Its so obvious. Try a little love shithead. :-)

I feel for you, shithead....maybe were close enough by now that I may simply call you shit. You can call me copper. Together we will change the world.


:) :)
 
Last edited:
copper_handshak said:
You sure cut yourself alot of slack when it comes to words dont ya shithead? Oh well, who cares?



The reason you interpret things that way is because it makes it easy for you to be what? HATEful.

Shithead, you would destroy all those different from you in a second if you could get away with it. Its so obvious. Try a little love shithead. :-)

I feel for you, shithead....maybe were close enough by now that I may simply call you shit. You can call me copper. Together we will change the world.


:) :)

will you please stop with the "hate" crap. your just sounding like a fool. i'm the one against wars and you say im tryin to destroy. im not interpreting anything in any particular way for me to hate more, thats just stupid, your a fool.

you didn't even touch the last arguments i put to you, you've simply been proven wrong, and in a desperate last attempt, instead of rebuting my argument your just now attacking me, which is pathetic and more importantly irrelevant to the issue.
 
instead of propsoing what's wrong with others posts, why don't you tell us how you would go about fixing the world's problems, like as you say poverty, solution to war, how would you protect us if you are against war??? I am not saying this to attack you, but to ask you a genuine question.
 
millionman said:
instead of propsoing what's wrong with others posts, why don't you tell us how you would go about fixing the world's problems, like as you say poverty, solution to war, how would you protect us if you are against war??? I am not saying this to attack you, but to ask you a genuine question.

your changing the topic, but i suppose its pointless waiting for copper the other few to come around.

im not gonna fool you or myself, i don't have the answers to these questions you've proposed. but i can make a slight point at a question you asked, you said, how would i go about protectiing america in this situation. im assuming you mean how would i protect america against threats such as terrorism. correct me if im wrong.

there is no threat to america, there never was. the war has not prevented attacks on america bacause there was no one capable of launching those attacks.

attacking iraq is not a war to protect, ever seen the simpsons episode where lisa says that a rock keeps away tigers? for those who havn't, lisa has a rock that she claims keeps away tigers, everyone looks around and there are no tigers in the city, the rock must work, all hail the rock.

same thing for america, bush could say the war protects america, everyone looks around and sees no attacks on america, the war must have worked, you get my drift.
 
I see this war on terrorism no different than the war on drugs. They launched that war on drugs years ago claiming it would stop the drugs circulating in the US. There are more drugs in the US today than there was when they launched that war. In a country that spends trillions on defense, billions on air defense, how do you not spot small sesna's flying across your border? The only logical answer would be that they are flying the majority of the drugs in themselves. Then when independant drug dealers do fly sesna's over their borders they are busted and exploited on national television. That way they can prove to you through the media that the war on drugs in working.

The only real solution would be to wake up. The longer the people pretend nothing is wrong the farther the people with power will push. If a little dog can sense a hurricane coming days before it does and starts to run around and act frantic, how is it possible that one can live in a country where it is apparrent something is wrong and ignore it. I guess humans aren't as advanced as we had thought.
 
good point on the drugs kausion, the stats show that fatalities from terrorist attacks have been steadily increasing since 2002.
 
Saddam had the capabilities to provide chemical and biological agents to terrorists. Terrorists who for various reasons want to and could possibly use those weapons on not only American soil, but the soil of our allies. Now shithead, I wish you would change you handle by the way, I know you disagree with my position on Saddams ability to manufacture those weapons, and his connections with the type of people that would use them. I believe that the evidence is out there to back up my points. Many people agree with me, including some world leaders, members of intelligence communities, etc.

Preventing terrorism. Thats a tough one. I know that in India, in the places where hi-tech jobs have become abundant, there has been a noticeable decrease in extremist behavior and teachings. Thats one reason President Bush does not do more to stop the export of certain U.S. jobs over there. But is terrorism only about economics? I think its based on religious values. I think the West has become to sleazy and secular, and the Middle East is to 'dark ages' in there treatment of women and in other aspects. God, praying 5 times a day, shire law (sp?), how can one even talk about Christian Fundamentalism being extreme when you look at Islam? Now I like religion. I am fairly conservative when it comes to what I consider vulgarity on T.V., movies, music, etc. I have friends that are Muslim but jihad has got to stop. Its taking place everywhere, and will probably be coming to a place near you. Just the other day in the Netherlands. Plans in London for a chem attack. The Phillapines, Spain, Turkey, the list goes on. Its not just about America. I think its about conversion. Conversion to Islam. What do you think?
 
Kausion, on the drug thing, its not that hard to smuggle coke into to the U.S. It just isnt. The pot is grown here, the meth is made here. Get this one, you know how people do indoor grows of course, well, their starting to do poppies indoors now to make there own herion instead of importing it. Isnt that wild? The war on drugs is a tough battle. Im for decrim when it comes to marijuana. Im a big medical supporter also. Im not sure about total legalization. Id rather see alcohol illegal than pot if I had to choose.
I do belive that some customs agents look the other way when it comes to letting coke slide by. I think those guys should be looking at life sentences for allowing that to happen, maybe that would put an end to it. But the government flying the shit in, no way. If it was happening the media would be all over it, Michal Moore would have a field day.
Hey, I probably shouldnt ask you this but, are you one of the guys that think the moon landings were all faked? Its cool if you are, Ive known some guys that believed that, friends of mine.
 
im seeing a trend with you copper. you bring up an argument, it gets shot down, you quickly change the topic.

and if your interested, i think the moon landing was fake, for two reasons, 1. there is way to much proof to deny, and 2. the US had every reason to fake it.
 
Shithead said:
and if your interested, i think the moon landing was fake, for two reasons, 1. there is way to much proof to deny, and 2. the US had every reason to fake it.

After reading your last couple posts I am finding something very interesting. The things you say somehow you are saying them right after I read things about them. As far as this moon landing hoax, 12 hrs ago I was reading something along the same lines. I can't say I agree with you that it is a hoax however. The reason I can't agree with you is because I have not researched the subject enough to have valid facts supporting it.

After just today reading that and now you posting it seems very strange. I am going to find more information about this.
 
From what I read it wasn't landings. It was the first landing. Like I said I don't agree with this because I don't have enough info backing it.
 
Back
Top