abc006 Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Schmuk x 1,000,000,000 PLUS ONE. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070919/ap_on_...h_eavesdropping Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean O Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Well, he's already destroyed the other 9 in the bill of rights, why should this be any different? Today at the auditorium next door several hundred people became US citizens. I walked by as they were getting out, each with a miniature American flag, and I couldn't help but feel sad for the country we've become. Millions of people have seen America as a shining beacon of freedom and logic in a insane, barbaric world, and we are disgracing that image daily. The beliefs laid out in the Constitution are so beautiful and pure that I can't believe what we've become. Or, for that matter, whether we ever have a hope of living to our potential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankee4Life Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 That's one scary article. Now this government wants to do anything they want to you and they'll hide behind the "national security" excuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hory Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 You guys don't understand the war on terra, If the federal government cannot monitor it's citizens 24/7 with no judicial oversight, the terrorists win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abc006 Posted September 20, 2007 Author Share Posted September 20, 2007 What really annoys me is the same excuses Bush makes, the same speil, and he expects people to still not know what he's up to. There has not been one single miniscule thing Bush has done in his entire presidency that I've agreed with, at least none I've seen, and I doubt I will see any. Not even the most basic seemingly common-sense, help-people-in-need sort of things, he just makes up some sh*t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstroEric Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 If you guys weren't doing anything wrong, i.e. being natives of New Zealand or Yankees fans, you'd have nothing to worry about, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankee4Life Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 If you guys weren't doing anything wrong, i.e. being natives of New Zealand or Yankees fans, you'd have nothing to worry about, right? What the hell, if they are going to start picking people up for being Yankees fans, I'd better say goodbye to everyone right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean O Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 What the hell, if they are going to start picking people up for being Yankees fans, I'd better say goodbye to everyone right now. Bush is from Connecticut, so I doubt it. Where this whole texas thing came from I have no idea, but he's as connecticut as the inbound train to NYC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abc006 Posted September 20, 2007 Author Share Posted September 20, 2007 Bush is from Connecticut, so I doubt it. Where this whole texas thing came from I have no idea, but he's as connecticut as the inbound train to NYC. The... westbound train to... Penn Station... is departing at..." ok, ok, I'll stop. I only even ride the LIRR about five times a year... Anyway, I think Texas is just a summer home or something... By the way, nice post, the first one you made, 100% true. I think saying, flat-out saying "pursuit of happiness" represents what a nation's goal should be... not meddling with trying to sort out what "freedom" or "justice" really means - just make sure everyone's happy. That's all there should be to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiheat32 Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Bush was raised in Midland and Houston, Texas not the most reliable source, but he lived in texas most of his life. he was also the gm of the rangers that oversaw the sammy sosa trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abc006 Posted September 20, 2007 Author Share Posted September 20, 2007 not the most reliable source, but he lived in texas most of his life. he was also the gm of the rangers that oversaw the sammy sosa trade.Yeah, I think just that's just about gotten out to every baseball fan - he's an awful president, (actually, the most awful) and an awful GM. I remember he once said he liked Pedro Martinez because he "gives up the least earned runs." Great explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYM Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 A little off topic but not really. Has anyone watched the military channel? There is no fighting in Iraq. We aren't at war with anyone. These soldiers are just going from door to door searching people. asking around and trying to find terrorists. HOW RETARTED IS THAT? That's like the police going to every home in American and trying to catch every criminal. We're not even fighing there. At least the last Bush kicked *** and got out, but no. We have to stay in there and not even fight. It's a "police action". This is the way I see it. We don't have to protect the U.S. by fighint in the Middle East. The way you protect America is bring aaaaaaaaalllllllllllll the troops home. Every last one. Then, you have fighter jets fly daily routes over major cities (mostly like they do now) and just add extra security to all ports and airports. The best offense is a great defense. If they can't attack, they can't win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean O Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 The way you protect America is bring aaaaaaaaalllllllllllll the troops home. Every last one. Then, you have fighter jets fly daily routes over major cities (mostly like they do now) and just add extra security to all ports and airports. Because, of course, the best way to stop an explosive in a car is by flying at 20,000 feet in an F16. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwentySeven Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Just as an FYI, you misspelled schmuck... The problem is that Bush probably knows that at this point that if he was impeached, by the time he was out of office, he would have been out of office anyways. He has nothing to lose, trying to pass off all his laws. Plus, he's an idiot in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abc006 Posted September 20, 2007 Author Share Posted September 20, 2007 Just as an FYI, you misspelled schmuck... holy crap, you're right. What was I thinking? I'll change it now... The problem is that Bush probably knows that at this point that if he was impeached, by the time he was out of office, he would have been out of office anyways. He has nothing to lose, trying to pass off all his laws. Plus, he's an idiot in general.I really doubt it will get passed in the democratic congress, bu he always has ways of getting around it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwentySeven Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 I agree, it's probably not going to get passed, I'm just saying that might be his dimwitted reasoning... Also, for the schmuck thing I'm just saying for future reference, thats all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiheat32 Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 just a little history for ya: i wouldnt consider bush to be the worst president in the history of the us. at least he initially took an action on what to do with iraq instead of just treading in water and doing nothing. although weve definitely stayed in the war way too long, he will leave the presidency with a few accomplishments under his belt like the capture of saddam hussein. as for the worst pres, it would be wg harding. his time in office included nothing positive with tons of scandals. plus, i guarantee most of all have never heard of him. another tid bit: the war in iraq is kind of similar to vietnam in some ways. lbj declared war (and grew up in texas just like bush) and of course the wars were fought for different reasons, but vietnam was a war where there were years of fighting, but no side was getting close to winning. finally when nixon took office, he started vietnamization, which was the withdrawl of the troops slowly from vietnam. so its not like the the us hasnt been in this situation before and its not like bush has been the only president blasted for staying in a war too long. i guarantee the next pres will start a process like vietnamization and we will be out of iraq in a few years. overall, im not saying bush is a good president, which he is not, im just saying this is not the first time something like this has happened. just my thoughts, feel free to blast me if you disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krawhitham Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Well, he's already destroyed the other 9 in the bill of rights, why should this be any different? 1st the Apple comment and now this Sean O telling it like it is (unless it is baseball related) :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arossi12 Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Damn, I have to vote next year :-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TruBlueBrewCrew Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 At least the last Bush kicked **** and got out The best offense is a great defense. If they can't attack, they can't win. The last bush failed miserably in the gulf war & is part of the reason were back their again. and the last time i looked we havnt been attacked since 9/11, so i think you need to rethink that strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFallenPhoenix Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 All men are mortal. All women are mortal. Socrates is mortal. Therefore, Socrates is...? Yes, the United States of America has not sustained a successful terrorist attack since September 11th, 2001. There are a variety of different reasons why this might be the case. Military action in Iraq, however, is almost assuredly not one of them. Considering the Department of Homeland Security is a sprawling, inefficient bureaucracy that, not only failed during the Hurricane Katrina crisis, but also has yet to successfully integrate the various intelligence agencies it is supposed to (and therefore fulfill its purpose, to fill the holes that helped fail to prevent the September 11th World Trade Center/Pentagon attacks)...yes, that really, really does not help much. Though ultimately, terrorism is so incredibly overblown, it really is not even funny. Not that I mean to minimize the threat terrorists pose--it is conceivable that, given very twisted pay-offs resulting from flawed rational capacities that would involve the acquisition and detonation of nuclear weapons in urban areas, but that's the absolute worst case scenario--but an interesting statistic I always like to mention from my IR class last year was that Americans have a better chance of dying from a coconut falling on their heads than getting killed in a terrorist attack on U.S. soil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meteamo Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Agreed TheFallenPhoenix ... BTW ... FEMA should be separate from DHS. The last bush failed miserably in the gulf war & is part of the reason were back their again. and the last time i looked we havnt been attacked since 9/11, so i think you need to rethink that strategy. That is a cop out ... saying that we haven't been attacked since 9/11 so it must be working. How many years did it take for them to plan for what happened on 9/11? They have all the patience ... just because they haven't attacked in 6 years doesn't necessarily mean that we have been doing a good job ... it just means that they haven't really tried another large attack like that. I hope they never do. It's just we are no safer than we were before. The sea ports aren't well protected. The trains and buses traveling within and across this country are not any safer. The only segment of transportation that seems to be getting any attention is the airlines industry and they are still using obsolete technology from I'm sure the 70's. And still, they have no idea what they are doing at the airports for security. Instead of being reactive like they are now ... reacting to a person that brings something onboard, so they don't allow it on the plane anymore, they should be proactive and instead of wasting so much of taxpayer's money, they should be investing it on ways of being able to detect all the materials they can cause a danger to us. It's kind of like my e-mail system at work. Instead of scanning every attachment for viruses like they should, they block certain types of attachments. There are always ways around it and the way the government is acting, they are trying to fool the public into thinking that what they are doing is working. And their solution to everyting is more surveillance and less freedom. Benjamin Franklin once said: They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security. And I believe it too. Anyway, Bush Junior was suffereing from the Oedipus complex ... he wanted to do what his daddy could not ... whether right or wrong. However, I don't believe it was about Oil as some made it out to be. By the way, the History Channel had several nice episodes about 9/11 and about the history of the World Trade Center. Very interesting. They may show the episodes again. One last thought How can we expect another country such as Iraq to get together a democratic government when it took a very long time for this country to have one? I don't understand why we become so impatient at someone else when it took us a while to do something ourselves. And I don't understand why we think that some other country needs democracy. What if another country sent their troops here to our land to stay here for a couple of years or so until we changed our government to match their government? Aren't we just doing the same thing? I thought colonialism died a long time ago. If we don't understand history, we are doomed to repeat it. And then again, Bush once admitted that he doesn't read books so I guess we were destined/doomed to repeat the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaptorQuiz Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 A little off topic but not really. Has anyone watched the military channel? There is no fighting in Iraq. We aren't at war with anyone. These soldiers are just going from door to door searching people. asking around and trying to find terrorists. HOW RETARTED IS THAT? That's like the police going to every home in American and trying to catch every criminal. We're not even fighing there. At least the last Bush kicked **** and got out, but no. We have to stay in there and not even fight. It's a "police action". This is the way I see it. We don't have to protect the U.S. by fighint in the Middle East. The way you protect America is bring aaaaaaaaalllllllllllll the troops home. Every last one. Then, you have fighter jets fly daily routes over major cities (mostly like they do now) and just add extra security to all ports and airports. The best offense is a great defense. If they can't attack, they can't win. As an (injured) retired member of the United States Army I submit the following opinion: NYM: You are the biggest ******* idiot that it has ever been my misfortune to encounter. Reading the childish, inane, and completely outlandish remarks you just posted make me ashamed that fellow soldiers are in harm's way, right now, defending the rights of dumb-fucks like you. But, then again, that is a commitment you make when you sign your name to become a Professional Soldier. Soldiers are there to defend the rights of ALL Americans, wether they be adult or child, man or woman, dumb fucks, or not. That is the role of the American Soldier. A pity you can't appreciate it. You think bringing all the soldiers home is the answer? In the middle of a conflict in a country we have pledged to assist rebuild? Do me a favor, son. Look up "Bay of Pigs" in Wikipedia or whatever you kiddies use these days - and learn some motherfucking American History - and the difference between cowards and Soldiers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el_jefe061 Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Yes, the United States of America has not sustained a successful terrorist attack since September 11th, 2001. This is not directed at you, but I love how people point this out. Look at the timeline between the first World Trade Center attack and September 11th. We can't judge how well we've been at defending terrorist attacks in America for at least another couple of years. You may point out the timeline between the Embassy bombings, the USS Cole, etc, but executing a terrorist attack in America and elsewhere are two different things. as for the worst pres, it would be wg harding. his time in office included nothing positive with tons of scandals. plus, i guarantee most of all have never heard of him. Warren G. Harding spent two years in office. Now, he is one of the worst rated Presidents of all time, but Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan, in my mind, were far worse. Ulysses Grant was pretty bad as well. As far as modern Presidents go, which Harding is, Bush definitely has to be up there. It's hard to rate a current President due to the fact we need to give it about a decade before we can truly analyze him, but I'd say Bush is still near the bottom. One of my big problems with Bush, besides the lying/secrecy/arrogance/terrible foreign and domestic policy/cronyism/etc, is the fact that this war was completely botched militarily from the start. There were never enough troops and the funding came from the wrong place. If I'm right, we had around 500,000 troops and 75% outside funding for the first Gulf War. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaptorQuiz Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Two of the most shameful events in American International-Diplomacy-History occured under the control of Democrat Presidents. President Kennedy betrayed Cuban revolutionaries that were promised our support in 1961. As a result, people desiring freedom from a Communist dictator died in the streets and their families were later executed in cold blood. President Clinton failed to act in any decisive fashion in 1998 to support the first REAL "War on Terror" and allowed terrorist groups like Al Queda to continue to train, plan, and fund actions inside the United States and abroad. So, when you all speak of the "public mistrust" and the "global hatred" of the United States - many seem to like to blame it on the Republican Presidents... those that put America's money where it's mouths were: those that ctually took steps and strides to make a DIFFERNECE in the world. And yet, two favorite Democrat Presidents (Kennedy, Clinton) merely paid lip-service to their duties... and cost the lives of coutless citizens of foreign nations that we had pledged to protect and assist. So... if you were a Cuban or Iraqi citizen... which would hurt you more deeply? A President who says he will be there for you, with military and multi-national support... and then isn't there... or a President who brings the United States' military force to bear for you... and then asks for little other than your full participation and national INTEREST in the rebuilding process? I'm not a fool. I am under no illusion that this (Bush) or any other administration is 100% open with the public... but I am also a firm believer that had Gore been in office, and not Bush, when the tradgedies of 9/11/2001 occured... we would be living in a far different world... and it would NOT be for the better... as some of us would like you to believe. I know I just went on a little bit of a rant... and if I truly offended anyone I apologize... but... I am a rare example. I am a college graduate. I am also a former member of the United States military (although, my service was an unfortunate and unintentionally brief one - due to injury). But on September 12th, 2001 - I was in a recruiter's office, volunteering for the United States Army. I have a deep and all-encompasing love for this country, and what it represents to me. I am extremely passionate about issues that I feel represent this country on the world stage. I take extreme offense to those that take the freedoms this country provides for granted: those that confuse our militarily won and defended rights with those that merely drop from the sky. I take offense to those that think Soliders are dumb animals, with no thought processes of their own, that aren't cognicent of the commitments they made to their country and their countrymen when they volunteered for military service. There may be some that are in the military today because they are running from other commitments, or hiding from something they don't want to face in civilian life. And then there are those that are in the National Guard forces, whom many are simply seeking College tuition-assitance from (and this is NOT a dishonorable practice). But there are many... many... many in the active military that volunteered because they believe in something that far too many young people (like myself) these days don't seem to understand. And that, more than anything else, is the greatest shame of all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.