In response to Scoobert
Some of what Xooxer posted has been well documented. Some examples:
Bush ties to the Bin Ladens: This goes back to Bush's oil days in the 1970's. Bush ran a company called Arbusto. Author Kevin Phillips, a top Republican strategist under President Nixon, reported in his new book, "Bush made his first connection in the late 1970s with James Bath, a Texas businessmen who served as the North American representative for two rich Saudis (and Osama bin Laden relatives) - billionaire Salem bin Laden and banker and BCCI insider Khalid bin Mahfouz. Bath put $50,000 into Bush's 1979 Arbusto oil partnership, probably using bin Laden-bin Mahfouz funds." Also of interest: Former CIA Director James Woolsey testified to the Senate on 9/3/98 that Mafouz's sister was married to Osama bin Laden. And according to the conservative American Spectator, "Bush has given conflicting statements about Bath's investment in Arbusto, finally admitting to the Wall Street Journal that he was aware that Bath represented Saudi investors."

I am not sure about the Cheney "wargame" comments or abny information about Osama in a US hospital. However, prior to September 11, Bush spent most of his time in Crawford, TX at his ranch there. That wouldn't be terrible in and of itself, but according to 9/11 Commission reports, there was reliable intelligence indicating an imminent attack on the U.S. Indeed, contrary to your statement Clinton was very worried about such threats and had made a great deal of effort to shore up domestic defense; some commentators have stated that he had trouble sleeping some nights worrying about an imminent chemical, biological, or other attack on the US. Some efforts were successful, such as the FBI foiling of an Al-Queada millenium attack on Los Angeles. Others were not. For example, Clinton proposed and anti-terrorism bill to Congress in 1999 and launched Cruise missile strikes at Al Quaeda training camps. Republicans accussed him of trying to divert attention from his scandal and said there was no credible threat.

Clinton didn't "provoke" Bin Laden, though. After the US Cole was attacked, he was determined to catch him. Unfortunately, it was too late in his term and he was facing a republican Inquisition over Monica Lewinski. While government prosecutors wasted time analyzing the infamous blue dress and tried to jail Linda Tripp, bin Laden was busy sending recruits to flight schools.

Scoobert wrote:
You make quite a few claims there, mind backing them up? If what you are saying is true(and I have not heard most of those before, so I wonder), than I need to rethink my choose for president. I think the 9-11 attacks where actauly provoked by Clinton. Most people don't see this, but much of the problems that Bush came into where the result of Clinton. Clinton attemped to get Osama killed, needles to say he didn't like that much, so he used that as reasoning for attacking America on our own turf. Would it have happened anyways? Probably. I wont go of on any tangets, but I would love to see some cold hard facts from what you have said. How about some links to sites like the BBC and whatnot that I can believe.
In response to Loduwijk
This whole marriage argument rings really hollow.

Marriage gives a whole package of rights along with it... hospital visitation, legal power for each other's well being, etc.... and while in some cases the right legal document can be used to gain a version of those rights... do you know what's happening more and more?

Same sex couples are being told that their power of attorney and such can't be recognized because that's "tantamount to marriage" and conflicts with all the new anti-gay marriage laws. If marriage is about either children, or if it is a sanctified religious rite... then why are we being told marriage is the sole benchmark for all these unrelated things and that we cannot have them, because recognizing them would border on recognizing marriage?

The anti-gay marriage laws aren't about tax burden or societal stability or tradition... they're nothing more than an attempt to codify the artificial substitute for morality fostered on us by one group of religions, and sadly, they're succeeding.

FYI, on a related note: do a little research on homosexuality in animals. You will find examples of mated [as in, for life] pairs of same-sex penguins both in the wild and in zoos. You will find tribes of baboons that are almost 40% bisexual. You'll find all kinds of stuff that generations of researchers simply swept under the rug because it didn't fit their worldview. Homosexuality occurs in percentages, fixed for individual species, across most mammals, birds, and even reptiles. It's part of the whole species survival package. A little thought will reveal the reason for this: it's NOT advantageous to have every member of an already successful species reproduce as fast as it can... but at the same time mating, either the transitory action or with more familial connotations, is part of the glue that holds groups of animals together. Nature/God's answer to this dilemna? Homosexuality. Part of an intricate, beautifully balanced machine.
Means 4 more years of tax cuts for the wealthy. Nice job bush puting the usa in a trillion dollar deafiste sure doing a nice job on health care education and not and giving tax cut to jobs that go over seas Bill Clinton when he was in Office he put America back to pieces Bush just broke the Pieces apart. Everyone knows that Gore should be President right now not Bush.
In response to Bronwxjr
Kujila thats wrong what u posted abotu hillary she be more better president then bush
In response to BobOfDoom
Actually, there is a very logical reason for it, like many Biblical commands. In ancient times, it was not uncommon to work workers very hard with no rest. Indeed, sometimes overseers would work them to death! By creating a Sabbath, the Jews allowed some measure of recovery while reinforcing their societal views. Interestingly, much of the Mosaic law is based around similar social justice that modern Republicans would likely brand "liberal welfare". For example, the tithe was originally used not to fund enormous chapels (the early Judeo-Christian faiths didn't have too much in the way of such buildings, usually just simple temples- see also the story of Solomon) but to take care of poorer members of society such as widows and orphans. Indeed, collecting of alms was a primary means to support such groups. Modern Republicans probably wouldn't like such "handouts". Debt collectors weren't allowed to charge usurious rates or collect certain assets such as the cloak (which protected the debtor from cold). Modern Republicans might call that socialistic business restraint. If someone injured or killed another's slave, child or relative, they had to pay compensation, often generous and sometimes continual for life. Modern Republicans call that a frivolous lawsuit.

I point these out not to show how bad the Republicans are, but how far they have strayed from traditional tenants of good stewardship. You see, it's all about power. Bush is no more a good Christian than bin Laden is a good Muslim. They both learned that you can garner power by invoking beliefs that are closely held by the populace. That's politics at its finest, I suppose.


BobOfDoom wrote:
Exodus 31:15
'For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a sabbath of complete rest, holy to the LORD; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall surely be put to death.

That's always seemed the most random thing to me.

In response to Jmurph
Jmurph wrote:
I am not sure about the Cheney "wargame" comments or abny information about Osama in a US hospital.

I was trying to find some "reliable" news service that covered the drills Cheney had held in September 2001, but none of them mentioned them. It doesn't really surprise me, it's not the kind of thing that CNN would report on. However, the 911 Commission's final report did mention the drills, though, only as a footnote.

The drills did take place and the FAA and NORAD were informed of them, which reduced their ability to detect real threats durring that time. I can't say that Cheney held these drills because he knew the attacks would happen then, and tried to provide a cover, or if it was in preparation for threats they had known about for months.

According to many sites about this, the drills were mock hijackings, playing out a scinereo that was thought to be the prime means of the terrorists attack. They weren't flying planes into buildings, or using them as weapons, as some procliam.

I should also note here that there are rumors of FEMA setting up an emergency relief post on pier 29 on September 10th, a day before the attacks. This is false, and started from a news report Dan Rather did with a Boston fireman named Tom Kenney. Kenney had said that he had been in NY since Monday, a day before the Tuesday attacks. He had simply made an error, though, most likely from fatigue. His crew had not left Boston until Tuesday night. That news cast, however, prompted conspirory theorists to conclude that FEMA knew of the attacks and were prepared for them. This is false, and should not discredit the real facts of the matter.

I haven't dug up any "reliable" evidence of Osama's stay in these hospitols, which were not here in America, I should add, mainly because I haven't looked yet. Reports claim, though, that he was admitted numerous times into a few American hospitols oversees for a variety of conditions. I'll try to dig up some more info.

~X
In response to Hedgemistress
Ah, Lexy. You are exactly right about nature. And marriage is simply a legal fiction. But do you really believe that this is what the debate is *really* about?

Do you think the "war on terror" has anything to do with terror? Why did New York, target of the worst terror attack in US history vote overwhelmingly against Bush, then?

I know you are intelligent. So let me ask you this: do you think it's any coincidence that "gay marriage" amendments were on the ballots of battleground states during a heated election? Do you think it's a coincidence that the average southern and midwestern white male is more concerned with gays, guns, and God than sane economic policy?

It's about power. Rove and crew knows how to fan the fires of hate. "They are godless perverts coming for your guns, but we can protect you," they cried. And the people listened.

You are intelligent. So was the average Kerry voter (Kerry won decisively among college educated and even wealthy voters). Kerry lost. Think about it.

(When they come to ask my brother to wear his pink arm patch or go to a special reform camp, they will regret not taking my guns ;-))
In response to Jmurph
I don't think that Gay merryiages should not be ban Why do ppl have a problem with it
In response to Ebonshadow
Ebonshadow wrote:
How many died in 9/11?

I didn't want to mention those, basically because I feel they are also on Bush's head. You'd disagree, of course, so I didn't bother to bring it up. We've lost about 1,000 troops so far, Bush's doing. We've killed even more "terrorists", also Bush's doing. I'm not sure on the exact Iraqi death toll, I doubt anyone is, but I'll wager it's more than 9/11 and our troops combined.

I don't know that Kerry actually killed anyone, do you? Just because he was in Vietnam doesn't mean he killed anyone. Sure, it's unlikely, but there were many troops stationed there that never even held a gun in aggression. And even he did kill, I highly doubt he could match George's numbers.

It sure feels like kill or be killed over here too.

You feel personally attacked by Saddam? Saddam never attacked us. He had no evil plans on sending nukes over here. He was busy enough trying to hide from assassins and run his country. He barely had a military. And what he did have couldn't have harmed anyone. I'm not saying he's a laid-back, easy-going guy, but he was not capable of assault, not then. Especially not against us.

And is that really the answer to our problem? You killed us, so we kill you, so you can kill us some more, so we can kill you some more? Sounds like a vicous circle to me. You can't defeat terrorism. The idea is absurd. And using terror and war to destroy terrorism is only going to breed more hatred and contempt for us, which is the primary motivating factor for terrorism in the first place. To win the war on terrorism, we have to stop pissing everyone off. If not, then someday we'll piss of the wrong people and they'll hit us so hard, 9/11 will look like a skinned knee.

~X
In response to Xooxer
Xooxer, you act as if George W. Bush took a gun and shot a thousand troops. He sent them to war, it is what countries do. Terrorists killed the American soldiers. We have to goto war sometime or another. Think of the Civil War. How many Americans died there? I don't see you grieving and blaming the president for that.

Kerry may have killed some Middle Easterners, I don't know, but as far as I know, everytime he tried, he would injure himself. He's an idiot.
In response to Kusanagi
Gay marriage is wrong, end of point. It just is, I don't like it and many man people here don't like it either.
In response to Kusanagi
I would not call it racist. I would call it either discriminating or prejiduce.
In response to Crispy
People using their religion to help them succeed in life (such as being elected in campaigns) is ridiculous. If you are Christian and believe in God, you do not use God to help you win things. People like this just make me sick.
In response to Loduwijk
Loduwijk wrote:
I highly doubt you are not religious. As long as you have a belief in how the universe came into being and why it is in existence then you have a religion.

Genesis has a creation theory, so therefore, anyone that has a theory about creation is religios, becuase Gensis is a religious book? So you mean to say that believing in humanity is a religious belief, becuase you believe that we were created by God, who is a religious figure in your mind, therefore I must be religious, because I can't deny my own existence? Sounds pretty fundamentalist to me. No wonder you like Bush so much.

The point to which you replied to yet somehow didn't reply to though, that still stands.

You mean this?:

Even if you aren't [a christian] yourself, you have to admit that at least most of the biblical commandments do nothing but give people good morals and build their character. I believe they all do;

Uh, actually, I find the bible to do just the opposite. It's a horrendous text to base your moral values on. There are numerous passages that promote slavery, murder, child abuse, incest and much more. What, now you're going to tell me only the good stuff applies? How do you judge what's the good stuff and what's not? You have to have a moral base to start from before you can even begin. The bible doesn't give you good morals, it defiles them.

Right, and I would rather have a leader who thought for himself, instead of relying on professional writers to make his major speaches, yet most presidents do that and there is nothing actually wrong about it. We don't get to know their mind as well when the thoughts aren't coming directly from them but rather indirectly through someone elses pen.

That's a complete contradiction to what you said previously. Good Christians adhere to the bible, their thoughts come from the writtings of men who died millenia ago. I think speach writters have their place, but they don't dictate to the speaker what to believe, they just convey the speaker's words in a more eloquent way, with some political spin. You want a good christian in the whitehouse. Fine, but don't also ask for one who thinks for himself, because the two are practically mutually exclusive.

What does listening to what some preacher says about right and wrong have to do with anything?

Because your president does. Or is he not a good christian now?

I never brought that up, in fact I don't listen to what a preacher says about right and wrong myself since I don't go to their buildings and listen to them preach.

Jesus was a preacher, so were the apostles. You going to just dismiss all thier words too? Sure, they didn't have huge buildings, or fancy robes, but they preached about God to the masses.

No, and Bush is not like that. Notice religious nutjob is in parenthesis in my statement, that was used extremely loosely. If Bush was like that I would have voted against him and prayed that he didn't get elected, as we would all be forced to adopt for our lifestyle what some preacher says we should, and then we really would all be listening to what they say is right and wrong - not my idea of a good nation. I don't want something like the old Catholic "church", which basically was another branch of government.

Then you should have voted against him, as that is what we have. He may not be holding a gun to your head and telling you to pray to his Lord, but his policies stem directly from his religious beliefs.

~X
In response to GokuDBZ3128
GokuDBZ3128 wrote:
Xooxer, you act as if George W. Bush took a gun and shot a thousand troops. He sent them to war, it is what countries do.

No, he didn't pull the trigger, but he put them in harm's way knowing they would die. If I was to push you in front of a moving bus, you couldn't blame the busdriver for hitting you, could you?

Terrorists killed the American soldiers.

I don't recognise people of a country fighting within their own borders against an invading force as terorists.

We have to goto war sometime or another.

No, we do not. There is such a thing as a peaceful resolution, civility and humanity. Or have we forgoten that?

Think of the Civil War. How many Americans died there? I don't see you grieving and blaming the president for that.

What? Bush wasn't even alive then. The notion is rediculous. If you mean President in office then, then yes, I do blame him. He should have resolved the issues between the north and south before it came to blows. He failed his country.

Kerry may have killed some Middle Easterners, I don't know, but as far as I know, everytime he tried, he would injure himself. He's an idiot.

Uh, yeah. Where is Vietname again? Don't hurt yourself now.

~X
In response to Zlegend2
Zlegend2 wrote:
Gay marriage is wrong, end of point.

No, not end of point; why is it wrong?

It just is, I don't like it and many man people here don't like it either.

So, it's wrong because you say it's wrong? Who are you again? The fact remains that two gay people marrying does not affect you or anyone else. If they want to wed, it's their choice, their life. You don't have to marry them. You don't have to attend their cerimonies, you don't have to chaparone the honeymoons. You have no say in the matter. None. It's none of your business, or anyone elses.

~X
In response to Jmurph
You are intelligent. So was the average Kerry voter (Kerry won decisively among college educated and even wealthy voters). Kerry lost. Think about it.

Of course teachers are mostly liberal and not everyone can take 12+ years liberal propoganda without cracking. Though it doesn't come out as direct political statments teachers points of view still becomes apparent. College students also generally haven't had to deal much in the way of taxes yet so they haven't had to deal with liberals stupid taxing policy of taxing people more so the government gets to decide who's needy when it comes to distributing your wealth(and the rich definitely don't deserve what they've worked for, they're evil and corrupt so they better be punished and get taxed even more!). So I'd say its pretty bad when most your votes come from college students because they are the people who may good intentions but have yet to get a feel for how poorly these good intentions work and how much it costs them. So I'd say a college students vote is more of a naive vote as they have yet to experience the weight of their vote as much as a taxed working person has.
In response to Bronwxjr
Bronwxjr wrote:
Means 4 more years of tax cuts for the wealthy.

What you people fail to realise is that it does not benefit only the wealthy. It benefits everyone proportionate to how much they make, which is how it should be. Taking vast amounts of money and redistributing it how the government sees fit is communism, and we don't want that. The lower class, which includes me, needs to work for its own money instead of trying to steal it from the upper class.

Nice job bush puting the usa in a trillion dollar deafiste sure doing a nice job on health care education and not and giving tax cut to jobs that go over seas

Why would you want to help outsourcing jobs? Giving tax cuts to businesses that put part of their work over seas is definately not the way to go, anyone and everyone who knows anything will tell you that. Even Kerry would tell you that.

Bill Clinton when he was in Office he put America back to pieces Bush just broke the Pieces apart. Everyone knows that Gore should be President right now not Bush.

Very wrong. Bush did not break it, rather he did a spectacular job keeping it together when so many others wanted to pull it apart. Though this is only speculation, I would assume that we would have had more terrorist attacks within our borders if Gore were in office. The Bush administration has countered a great many terrorist plots. Heck, even the ones we know he foiled is still probably only the tip of the iceberg.

And about "Gore should be the president"... that is just false. Gore called for recounts and the democrats did quite a bit of shady business trying to change the outcome yet it still did not go his way. When the recounters are told outright "Only count those which you can see are definately votes without any doubt." and then they go and use magnifying glasses to count votes for Gore because "We can see the voters intent was to vote for Gore because of that mark on his spot." then something really wrong is going on.
In response to Jon Snow
Many successful business men are on "vacation" all the time. They do their work in the motel or while on the road (or in the air). It helps people think better, so let them do it all they want. At least it's not a vacation in the sense that most people think of, he's not spending all day every day of the "vacation" on rides at an amusement park for instance.
In response to Loduwijk
Why would you want to help outsourcing jobs? Giving tax cuts to businesses that put part of their work over seas is definately not the way to go, anyone and everyone who knows anything will tell you that. Even Kerry would tell you that.

No he wouldn't because big evil(probably polluting also!)coorperations are evil and out to make the world an awful place so I couldn't even fathom a liberal actually admitting that giving them a tax break helps the economy. Though they evidently do understand they help recently Boeing was given some tax incentive so they'd build their new plane here in Washignton though I'm certain they stayed away from calling it a tax cut.
Page: 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10