Profile
Search
Register
Log in
If you need motivation to get Bush out of office check....
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Social stuff. Political stuff. KNOWMORE

Author Message
Sage Francis
Self Fighteous


Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 21555
If you need motivation to get Bush out of office check....  Reply with quote  

http://bushflash.com/ma.html



we are living in some sad, sad times.
Post Wed Dec 10, 2003 11:50 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
squirtisblow



Joined: 12 Mar 2003
Posts: 1587
Location: SFV
 Reply with quote  

thank you, i will try to spread the spores. somehow it makes u feel things can change, or at least some people care.
Post Wed Dec 10, 2003 11:56 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address MSN Messenger
Ismusbe



Joined: 23 Mar 2003
Posts: 14
 Reply with quote  

Everyone hates Bush, including me, but you have to wonder, would it have happened differently if Gore was in office? The institutions are the same, just a different puppet on the big stage dancing. Either way, I wana see Bush ejected as soon as possible, but by who? Dean? Come on, that guys as spinelss as Clinton when it came to change...Take for example Clinton's campaign promise to induce an executive order to allow gays in the military, instead he cracks under pressure and we've got this rat ass dont ask dont tell policy. Dean, sure he "signed" the civil union law in Vermont, but he has publicly said that he would NOT support the right for gay and lesbian people to marry. Yeah sure not all homosexuals want to marry but give them the fucking right and let them choose. Well thats my rant
Post Thu Dec 11, 2003 12:09 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Sage Francis
Self Fighteous


Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 21555
 Reply with quote  

I truthfully th8ink it would be different if Gore was in office.

Do you not see the relation between the Bush family and the Middle East? Oil?

I see a difference
Post Thu Dec 11, 2003 12:49 am
 View user's profile Send private message
Ismusbe



Joined: 23 Mar 2003
Posts: 14
 Reply with quote  

Well what I see are countless times over the past century in which presidents both democrat and republican killing thousands of innocent people in the "name of Democracy and Freedom." The retaliation after 9/11 would have been the same no matter who the president, opening this can of worms we see today in the middle east.

What you cant ignore is the dependence of the US as a country in general on Oil.
Post Thu Dec 11, 2003 1:38 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
MAGIstraight



Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 3689
Location: livin' dead ever since
 Reply with quote  

Perhaps the 9/11 incident wouldn't even have occured if Gore was in Bush's place... I don't want to get all into "conspiracy theorist" mode or anything... just saying... maybe...

But you're right about our dependency on oil... We are truly SCREWED on some level when the rigs stop a pumpin...

Oh the times they are a changin... hopefully soon.




Maybe after all this mess gets bigger and bigger and perhaps even explodes we'll have some sort of moral renaissance or something... I could only hope so...

I have a radiohead poster in my room that at the bottom reads, "I am awake at 4am to the undeniable and terrifying truth that there is nothing I can do to stop the monster".... or something very close to that.... put it in the right context and it might be our future pretty damn soon here....

aye aye aye... a pirate's life for me.
Post Thu Dec 11, 2003 2:42 am
 View user's profile Send private message
Reggie



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 5765
Location: Queens, NYC
 Reply with quote  

Conspiracy theories aside for the moment--not to say they don't hold a lot of weight, just for the sake of conjecture--if Gore was in office instead of Bush, the terrorist attacks on 9/11 might still have happened. But knowing Gore and how eager he is to be diplomatic, he'd probably be chided for his inaction rather than for his actions. Gore strikes me as Jimmy Carter type material, for what that is worth.

What would also be different is that the rape of the the American economy by bankrupting giant corporations and their federal bailouts that have occurred under Bush would probably not have happened under Gore...however it is more likely that the politicians themselves would be doing the bulk of the raping.
Post Thu Dec 11, 2003 9:15 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

Exactly.

Gore would simply found a different way to rape us financially and morally.

Beleive that. Don't forget that Gore is the guy that wanted to put fucking "toll booths" on the internet. [most] Democrats are just as dangerous to our freedoms as [most] Republicans.

It's fucking ugly.

- Shane
Post Thu Dec 11, 2003 9:32 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ismusbe



Joined: 23 Mar 2003
Posts: 14
 Reply with quote  

Bingo.

But the question is, what do we do to solve this? Do we continue to support democrats just for the fact that they arent repbulicans and hope that eventually change will occur?
Post Thu Dec 11, 2003 9:58 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Reggie



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 5765
Location: Queens, NYC
 Reply with quote  

Well, as I see it, America is in a crisis at the moment. There is a big fire raging, and the options are to let it consume everything and rebuild, or put it out really fast and figure out what to do with the remains soon after.

I can't say which will be the better option. Right now I am most concerned about getting Bush out of office, but will this really change things for the better? Greenspan has been the maestro of our economy since Reagan, doesn't look like he's going anywhere anytime soon. The Supreme Court will still have a conservative majority for at least two more presidential terms. Seems that ultimately we will either revolt or we will be forced to shift gears by and outside (and more economically stable) entity. Can't call it right now, though.
Post Thu Dec 11, 2003 10:06 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

To expound:

I don't think things would be any better, and I CERTAINLY don't beleive that a plan that was put in action DURING THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION would have been cancelled because CLINTON'S VP got office instead of Bush.

I still think the whole oil angle for the war is a farce. Bush is not stupid, and anyone that thinks that Iraq's oil will be significant enough to reduce our dependancy on Saudi Oil and the oil from other OPEC nations is either politically spinning things to make Bush look bad (a good tactic, domestic politics is too much of a hotbed...talking about what's happening to AMERICANS is not what Dems OR Republicans want...this is why Bush is desperately trying to improve his domestic policy) or has no idea how much oil we consume.

Let's not forget that Clinton's strategy in Iraq was just as, if not more, infuriating to Muslims due to it's cowardly nature. Most people [in general, I'm not going with Bill Maher's "we didn't beat our chests enough" theory here] don't like cowards, and enforcing the "no fly zone" by killing innocent Iraqi's probably didn't get the Democrats any points in the eyes of Muslim "extremists" (who are typically well educated in American politics, after all...even more so than any of us I would wager - and certainly moreso than myself).

The policies they [meaning terrorists] are complaining about may have been put in place by Republicans, but they have been nurtured in a bipartisan fashion since their inception - and I have a hard time beleiving that Clinton's running mate would have been any less on the fence about the "middle east problem" than his hero.

I can't beleive how easy people are fooled by these cardboard cutout Democrats.

"We're for the people!" Yeah. When you're done thinking YOU have a better idea who needs what than THEY do...

"Demilitarization!" Yeah, as long as you can still drive your fucking State-funded SUV around all day and park wherever your bullshit ass desires.

Ugh. Republicans are more dangerous because they tend to be smarter. Democrats only get power because they're better at human manipulation (yes, these don't apply to every single politician, I know), and in the end it results in a bipartisan bumbashing of the people.

God Bless America. No, God. You have no choice. I'm not asking "Would you PLEASE Bless America, God?" You MUST bless America. And if you don't exist, you'd best work on building an existance for yourself and then BLESS US! IF YOU DON'T, WE WILL SENT TED KENNEDY TO YOUR HOUSE WITH A BOTTLE OF TEQUILA AND A TASER!


Sorry...I"m done.

Bad day.

- Shane
Post Thu Dec 11, 2003 10:11 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ismusbe



Joined: 23 Mar 2003
Posts: 14
 Reply with quote  

INteresting observations, check this ish out:

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."

Who said this? Bill Clinton in 1998....


"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed."

Who said this? Madeline Albright in 1998...


"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998



AND FINALLY

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

Yep you guessed it Al Gore in 2002.


Like ive said before, I dont think it would have mattered who is pres. but thats the past, whats happened as happened, i just hope whoever is in office next doesnt get wrapped up in Iraq just becuase Bush had his head up is ass.
Post Thu Dec 11, 2003 10:46 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Jared Paul



Joined: 15 Jul 2002
Posts: 3720
Location: www.PrayersForAtheists.org
lesser of two eagles;  Reply with quote  

exhibit A.
gore would've been bad, but the bush team
is beyond worse.

i do not call myself a democrat, BUT RUMSFELD
WAS NIXON'S SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, and the people
with the power that he represents, give way
LESS of a fuck about the average worker,
or the world's average worker.

for me it's mathematics:
do i want to get shot in the leg? or do i want to get shot in the temple?

catching a bullet sucks either way. but given the choice? with a family
depending on my ability to work in mind?

i'ma take my chances with the shot in the leg. I'M GONNA GET SHOT NO MATTER WHAT, might as well go for the good wound Keanau.

exhibit B.
Wolfiwitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashecroft, Rove, Powell, Bush,
pre emptive war, the patriot act & The Carlysle Group

VS.

Gore, Lieberman, probably powell again,
possibly Ramsey Clark, possibly Paul Wellstone,
possibly Hillarly Clinton, and other Clintonista's

it's obvious that neither of these two squads are exactly the working man's all star team-
but tell me, honestly, is there any doubt which outfit is more likely step on our rights, finatically push anglo saxon christian agenda's, rig elections, advocate for the biggest businesses, and play Russian Roulette with human lives?

*"i've got a nose for when the situation STINKS..." and it does. but if our people our gonna take a shot, i think it's best we know what we're getting into. The packaging may be similar and the taste strikingly alike, but one's got more side effects potent enough to take your life: i'll go for the shot in the leg every time.

( AND NOT VOTING IS THE SAME AS CHOOSING THE SHOT TO THE HEAD,
LIKE PUTTING BOTH BULLETS INTO THE CHAMBER AND GIVIN' IT A SPIN,
"uh... maybe i'll fight Apollo and uh maybe i won't... yoo no?
maybe i'll get shot in the head and uh... maybe i won't...")
Post Thu Dec 11, 2003 2:05 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
Rhino



Joined: 10 Apr 2003
Posts: 4798
Location: Square of Despair
Re: lesser of two eagles;  Reply with quote  

MANICexpressive wrote:

i do not call myself a democrat, BUT RUMSFELD
WAS NIXON'S SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,


Where'd did you get this peice of knowledge?



Secretary of Defense:

Melvin R. Laird (1969-72)
Elliot L. Richardson (1973)
James R. Schlesinger (1973-74)
Post Thu Dec 11, 2003 2:26 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
Re: lesser of two eagles;  Reply with quote  

MANICexpressive wrote:
Gore, Lieberman, probably powell again,
possibly Ramsey Clark, possibly Paul Wellstone,
possibly Hillarly Clinton, and other Clintonista's



I see the same dangers, different appraoch, with these people my man. Lieberman has never respected the first ammendment, and never will. Gore wanted the government to monitor (Not just watch like they do now, but actually LEGALLY restrict content) the internet - which is a source of information that is more critical now than ever. Without the internet as free from authority as it is, millions of dissenting voices would be effectively silenced. No, that is not the loss of life that a war incurs...YET...but eventually it could lead to things that are far worse as we stifle the flow of information. More vicious wars could be perpetrated when we don't have any access to information outside of our little world...look at China for a great example of what the Internet could be in America...although in China they make no bones about it...here it would be stifled by the laws that Dems would make in order to help the "free market". It would be really ugly. Add the terrorist attacks and you can see HOW restricted our flow of information would really get. Like it or not, Republicans restrict people's freedom of speech less than Dems historically, and I've heard MANY conservatives BASHING THE FUCK out of how the Bush "administration" has attacked our freedoms in the name of terrorism, I really fully beleive that it would have been WORSE with Dems in office...remember, the Patriot Act was a "bipartisan" effort with only 1 (Republican, I beleive) dissenter.

Dems are indeed the better choice RIGHT NOW, I would agree. I might painfully have to vote Democrat for the first time in my life. And no, I've never voted Republican, either...beleive that....but I think that a third party has the strongest chance EVER this year because Republicans are just as mad at Bush as Dems are it would seem. I'm saying we need a Perot vs. Nader type year. I think if the situation weren't so desperate, now would be the time for the third party surge...but so many are thinking just as you are, Jared..."We have other things to worry about"...to me, it's about making things better for now (and save X amount of lives) or better for good (and save twice that many in the long run)...I'll have to decide when I'm in the booth. Maybe something will make it an easier decision for me by then.


Peace,
Shane
Post Thu Dec 11, 2003 4:01 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Fri Aug 29, 2014 12:23 pm
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon