Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Florida Panhandle
    Posts
    4,389
    STRANGE HEADLINES!
    “MONSTER IN LOCH NESS EATS BOAT FULL OF TOURISTS!”
    “BIGFOOT ADOPTS CONJOINED TWINS!”

    “INCREDIBLE GECKO-BOY IS ON THE LOOSE AGAIN!”

    “BUSH AND KERRY IN DEAD HEAT!”

    There are some headlines that are beyond belief.

    Now, before I get into this, I myself am a lifelong Republican. My grandfather used to hoist a few with Nixon and ***** about “them damned Kennedy boys”.

    The claim that polls show voters split evenly between Bush and Kerry defies all logic and reason. More to the point, such a claim is insulting to voters.

    Setting all other issues aside, the cold hard fact of the matter is that the Bush administration lied about Iraq to justify a war of conquest. I know there are some hard-core Bush supporters still living in denial and refusing to admit they were made fools of, but with the issuance of the Duelfer Report, it is now the OFFICIAL US GOVERNMENT POSITION THAT Iraq did NOT have weapons of mass destruction or the means to make them. Iraq had indeed complied fully with the United Nations requirement to disarm. Other government reports confirm that Saddam Hussein was NOT supporting Al Qaeda, nor was any link between Iraq and 9-11 ever documented.

    The President lied.

    There was no "Intelligence failure". An Intelligence Failure is when something is happening that you don't know about. You miss the evidence. Or you misinterpret the evidence you have.

    But with regards to the claims about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, there was no evidence to miss or misinterpret. There could not be, since in hindsight there were no weapons to leave traces of evidence with. The story about weapons of mass destruction was just made up, and fraudulently manufactured "proof" created to support that lie. The mere existence of Tony Blair's dossier, plagiarized from a student thesis, is proof not only that the claims of Iraq WMDs were lies, but were known and conscious lies. Had there been any real proof, it would have been shared immediately between the various war-mongers. There would have been no need for Tony Blair to concoct his discredited Dossier. But, what the public were offered were mislabeled and blurry photos, made up dossiers, and balloon inflators misidentified as mobile biological weapons laboratories (which the British government knew about since they had sold the balloon inflators to Iraq in the first place).

    So, there was no "intelligence failure". There was no intelligence with which to fail. The whole crock about Iraqi WMDs was a made-up fiction. Deal with it.

    Personally, I can think of no greater crime a leader can commit than to lie to his people while sending their children off to a war of conquest. An administration capable of lying to start a war is capable of any evil.

    And that’s why media claims that half of voters will vote for Bush are unbelievable, and insulting.

    Because that headline is claiming that at least half of voters are perfectly okay with a President that lies to start a war.

    That headline claims that at least half of voters are okay with sending other people’s kids off to die in a war based on lies, in exchange for a tax break and cheap gas.

    That headline claims that at least half of voters are okay with the epidemic of severe birth defects that has hit the families of our service people exposed to depleted uranium in Iraq.

    That headline claims that at least half of voters are okay with a United States that has become one of the most hated nations on Earth.

    That headline claims that at least half of voters are okay with a United States that tortured innocent civilians in the hunt for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction that the government now sheepishly admits never existed.

    I've never met anyone like that.

    I don't know anyone who says, "Yes, it is okay for the President to lie to us all to start a war nobody wants, and we don't need to know his real reasons."

    I don't know anyone who says, "Yes, it is okay for your kid to be killed and crippled in Iraq as long as I get a tax cut."



    I don't know anyone who says, "Yes, it is okay for our government to torture people."

    The people I know are appalled by torture, mourn the war dead, are concerned at America's loss of moral leadership in the world, and do NOT give their consent to be ruled by a government that lies to them to start wars.

    And that is why I don't believe the headline that voters are split evenly between Bush and Kerry. It is just too fantastic.

    Of course, political analysts will admit that public polls don't measure public opinion, they are intended to manufacture it, hoping that if the illusion is created that most people want to rub blue mud into the navels that most people will just go along and the blue mud manufacturer will grow rich (and then make the appropriate political contributions).

    And that is the real reason for the polls claiming that Bush and Kerry are in a dead heat; to create the illusion that the race is even in advance of yet another litigious and dishonest election. Already the news is reporting scandal after scandal of rigged voting machines, destroyed voter registration cards, and other vote frauds. In one case reported last week, voters in an early voting state were receiving hoax phone calls inviting them to vote by using the buttons on their touch-tone phones. Needless to say, after completing the phone call, these voters will be staying home on November 2nd.

    For vote fraud to work, it must appear that the candidate engaging in fraud could have won anyway. If candidate "X" is down twenty points in the polls then wins the election, taxpayers will be suspicious. Stealing an election requires polling numbers that make it look like the fraud is winning anyway. And that, in the end, is the real reason that despite Kerry's post-debate lead, the media polls have slowly edged their way back to claiming that the race is even.

    Would this President use his influence to rig the media polls? Of course. This is, after all, a President who lied to the people to send our kids off to a war of conquest.

    Say, did you read that headline of how space aliens in UFOs are going to bring Elvis back?



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    What Really Happened

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    20,677
    Uh, yeah. I'd say all the above belongs in the same rag.
    No reserve. No retreat. No regrets.

    For those who have fought for it, freedom has a sweetness the protected will never know.

    http://www.airwarvietnam.com/16thSOSGunners2.jpg

    Proud member of KA Club

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    5,773
    Originally posted by royc
    STRANGE HEADLINES!
    “MONSTER IN <a href="loch%20ness" onmouseover="window.status='LOCH NESS'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">LOCH NESS</a> EATS BOAT FULL OF TOURISTS!”
    “BIGFOOT ADOPTS CONJOINED TWINS!”

    “INCREDIBLE GECKO-BOY IS ON THE LOOSE AGAIN!”

    “BUSH AND KERRY IN DEAD HEAT!”

    There are some headlines that are beyond belief.

    Now, before I get into this, I myself am a lifelong Republican. My grandfather used to hoist a few with Nixon and ***** about “them damned Kennedy boys”.

    The claim that polls show voters split evenly between Bush and Kerry defies all logic and reason. More to the point, such a claim is insulting to voters.

    Setting all other issues aside, the cold hard fact of the matter is that the Bush administration lied about Iraq to justify a war of conquest. I know there are some hard-core Bush supporters still living in denial and refusing to admit they were made fools of, but with the issuance of the Duelfer Report, it is now the OFFICIAL US GOVERNMENT POSITION THAT Iraq did NOT have weapons of mass destruction or the means to make them. Iraq had indeed complied fully with the United Nations requirement to disarm. Other government reports confirm that Saddam Hussein was NOT supporting Al Qaeda, nor was any link between Iraq and 9-11 ever documented.

    The President lied.

    There was no "Intelligence failure". An Intelligence Failure is when something is happening that you don't know about. You miss the evidence. Or you misinterpret the evidence you have.

    Have you ever wondered what it would be like to have your head removed from your ass?

    This thread is foolish.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Buffalo N.Y.
    Posts
    1,571
    They say we're(Reps)in denial, I say they(Dems)are delusional.

    Now with that being said which one goes hand-in-hand with foreign affairs? war strategy? FDR was in denial, Hitler was delusional........... ummmmmmmm!!!!!!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    2,683
    I voted for Bush with reservations, and my reservations have been confirmed.

    Bush has us involved in something that is far more serious than anything this country has been involved in, for a long time and basically went at it alone unless you consider 200 Polish soldiers a coalition.


    If Bush feels so strongly that this is the right war at the right time, and that the majority of Americans are behind you, then what is the problem with starting a draft?

    I think he blew it going after a country that we had surrounded and basically knew when a house fly took flight. How about N.Korea and Iran, they are the ones that really do have WMD's.

    I am also concerned that our deficit is at a record high. Just had to raise the debt limit...again. But go ahead Mr. Bush and sign the $145 billion tax break to large corporations that you just signed quietly last week.

    Bush is a forty something spoiled rich kid that never grew up playing in Daddys Whitehouse. Most gas station attendants have worked harder to get where they are at than Bush.

    How can I not be upset that my childrens, children will be paying for the mess this guy has got us into. It's all very disappointing.
    Live each day like it is your last, for one day you will be right!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    5,773
    Originally posted by hvac r us 2
    I voted for Bush with reservations, and my reservations have been confirmed.

    you make your country, parents, and me proud

    Bush has us involved in something that is far more serious than anything this country has been involved in, for a long time and basically went at it alone unless you consider 200 Polish soldiers a coalition.


    Ya gotta look at the facts. Saddam WAS building his weapons program by scamming the oil for food program and making a ton of money doing it. He was buying tanks and registering them as 'agricultural' equipment-for an example.

    The resolutions broke down. He failed to prove that he destroyed his WMD. And it was common knowledge that he was trying to obtain them (we thought 'more') There are weapons 'unaccounted for' they could have been destroyed or they could be in another country or the could be buried in Iraq somewhere.

    In terms of our allies, some of our so called friends were involved in the oil for food scandel. Do you really think they would be with us?

    If Bush feels so strongly that this is the right war at the right time, and that the majority of Americans are behind you, then what is the problem with starting a draft?


    Why start a draft? There are plenty of people signing up. Although the 'quotas' aren't where they want them to be.


    I think he blew it going after a country that we had surrounded and basically knew when a house fly took flight. How about N.Korea and Iran, they are the ones that really do have WMD's.


    He was starting to gather assistance from our so called allies. It could be argued that the timing in going in was off, But the talking and resolution stage was over. We could have been in a bigger mess the longer we waited.


    I am also concerned that our deficit is at a record high. Just had to raise the debt limit...again. But go ahead Mr. Bush and sign the $145 billion tax break to large corporations that you just signed quietly last week.


    The deficit will take care of itself. Whos deficit do you think we had to pay for?

    The more the economy prospers the more revenue will be collected to pay down the deficit. And taxing the **** out of people will only make it worse, especially in the long term.


    Bush is a forty something spoiled rich kid that never grew up playing in Daddys Whitehouse. Most gas station attendants have worked harder to get where they are at than Bush.


    this is you skewed opinion and has no basis in fact. Haven't I taught you better?

    How can I not be upset that my childrens, children will be paying for the mess this guy has got us into. It's all very disappointing.


    this 'guy' didn't get us into this mess-The terrorists did!! and we cannot just sit back and get slaughtered by the sick F@#!s

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Buffalo N.Y.
    Posts
    1,571
    You know.... I get the biggest kick from people that keep mentioning N.Korea and Iran. They complain about where we are now, yet they seem to want us to go into these countries with the misconception that they might not launch a nuclear device.
    Do you think N.Korea won't launch if provoked?
    China is going to control N.Korea, it's Iran that we need to focus on, opps, were right next door.

    What about Iran, funny how folks are really concerned now, after we went into Iraq. Did anyone really even know that Iran was a bother before? most likly not, no one cared until Kerry brought it up, and then panic set in. Follow the leader mentality. Kerry is dangerous for America, he doesn't care about you, he cares about Kerry.

    You have to know how to pick your fights, if you try to pick a direct fight with the biggest kid in the yard there is a good chance you'll sustain much more injury. Why not start smaller and show the big kids you mean business.
    Some people just don't get it!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    southeast
    Posts
    1,477
    why not show the big kids you mean buisness", that is laughable.

    the problem the negotiators will have with any "big kids", is that now we are in a bog with the little kid that was minding his own buisness.
    the seeming ineffectiveness of our long term plan , shows that we can barely handle iraq.

    which means to the north koreans... we can't touch you. we're busy.

    which means to the iranians... we can't spread our troops out anymore,so you are off the hook too.(surely , there are iranians financing/running some of the insurgencies going on in iraq.

    the image of the US looks weaker now to the rest of the world, because we couldn't even shape up a "defenseless" country like iraq where most of the army skiddattled when we got there.

    the bungling of this whole thing by rumsfeld and bush, cost this country in reputation and real power.the middle east as a whole realizes we are not the mighty we pretended to be.just don't meet us in a full frontal battle,because we will pulverize you.but guerilla tactics are something we can't deal with.

    now that that lesson has been taught(because of rumsfelds "plan" on having as few boots on the ground as possible)we will surely face this again and again.



    and to say people didn't know iran was a threat until kerry brought it up , just shows you hang out with ignorant people.



    and inferior wisdom.....

    your list of comebacks are a joke.proving the name above fits you very well.you are not even serious enough to shoot back at.you make unsubstantiated claims and chide others for not agreeing with you....ha ha ha

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Buffalo N.Y.
    Posts
    1,571
    Your reply shows me, and probably others that you revolve in a very tight circle. You assume many things, yet know very little.

    Using the analogy of not directly facing the big kids(nuclear armed), has been a military philosophy ever since the atomic days. No one in their right mind will launch an invasion force on a nuclear capable country without having a launch pre-requisite themselves. Instead you mention "negotiators", let's follow that a little.

    What are the purpose of negotiations? to get something!!!!!! that's it, nothing else. Both sides argue their points, you give us a surety that you'll stop building weapons and they want food and oil and money, that's blind blackmail at it's core. The only block that they and we have is a nuclear launch, and you and I know that we will level both N.Korea and Iran if it were to come to that. The threat of military action is the trump card.
    Negotiations always buy time for the otherside, all in the while they suffer and die and build more weapons.
    For example, in Iraq, the world is told that Iraq was in-capable of building any form of a WMD, yet time and again you hear that a trace of this or a launch tube for that was found during operations, and also finding buried equipment of various types. Why then didn't the U.N., who had resolutions, embargos, sanctions, remove these restricted weapons initially? Point being that even if Saddam didn't have massive amounts of forbidden weapons, if time were allowed to lapse it would be only a matter of time until these amounts increased, or a "Gathering Threat"
    Negotiations Are A Joke

    So using your argument only shows that you are detached from reality.


    Now about IRAN, I remember very well when the hostages were taken, I was 15 at the time and vividly remember the morning my alarm clock went off and the radio had the news on about this.
    I was in the service during the eighties and that time was very hostile towards Iran, so I remember Iran very well.

    It was during the democratic days of the 90's that we took our eye off of Iran and look at them now, Bush has to deal once again with a "Gathering Threat" from the "dropped ball" days of Clinton and the U.N.
    Do your really think that Iran is going to just stop building? negotiations just buy them more time to circumvent any obstacles.


    Here again military action is the only trump card.
    So we don't have the troops to invade Iran, what if we had waited and then had to invade Iran all the while losing sight of Iraq? what's your argument now? we should have not gone into Iran because now we can't negotiate with Iraq, simple, isn't it? Sounds like you want a draft to fill the voids so we can counter any and all threats......... ummmmmmmmmm


    Your arguments sound unrealistic and incapable of dealing with the real world.

    You never, ever face the big guy if you absolutly don't want devestation beyond your belief. You think Iraq is bad, you have no idea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



    [Edited by bobby7388 on 10-31-2004 at 09:55 AM]

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event