Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: DamoclesX on November 03, 2004, 10:21:56 am
-
Cnn is saying kerry bowed out and Bush won? IS this confirmed? they are not counting those extra ballots?
-
RUMORS! it's RUMORS!
Nothing official from him
-
when you hear something like this on tv wait an hour before trying to make a judgement on weather or not it's true.
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20041103/ap_on_el_pr/eln_election_rdp
WASHINGTON - President Bushwon a second term from a divided and anxious nation, his promise of steady, strong wartime leadership trumping John Kerrys fresh-start approach to Iraq and joblessness. After a long, tense night of vote counting, the Democrat called Bush Wednesday to concede Ohio and the presidency, The Associated Press learned.
-
kerry hasn't said it himself yet!
-
dude, all the news websites are running the story. Its not just Fox or whatever, they're all confirming it.
-
but it's bush's people claiming it
KERRY HASN'T SAID IT
-
check me post in the other thrad. Legitimate news webistes are confirming it. Maybe if it was only on the Drudge Report, then I woulc be skeptical, but everyone is running the story. If its turns out to be fake, I'll gladly admit I made a mistake. Look, its not like I want Bush to win, I'm just passing on the news.
-
please, please change your sig. If you think big red letters make your opinion look respectable and legitimate, you're a bit off the mark. We all know what you think of this election, God knows I even agree with you somewhat, but I'm not looking forward to having to see that several times in every thread.
-
rictor kiss my ass im not in the mood
-
Stop being such a freakin' crybaby, Kazan. You lost. Accept it. 4 more years!!!
-
YOU SUPPORT HIM SO MUCH - JOIN THE ARMY
-
Kazan:
here, this is one of the most pro-Kerry blogs in the planet, and quite a big and respected one at that. They're confirming it.
http://www.dailykos.com/
-
Ya, its over, kerry lost.
Got to admit, while bush has his ruff edges, I find him a lot more funny to watch then kerry
and sicne I live in canada, unless he turns his eye to us Id rather have him then mr I have 100 billion dollars but really, I care about you.
-
Rictor: until it comes out of his mouth it means nothing - they're just confirming that the president claims kerry called him
-
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041103/D864G8201.html
1pm he will concede the election
I have some new found respect for the man.
-
nothing from his own mouth yet
-
From what they are saying the republicans also control the senate? does that mean bush can push through anything he wants?
-
With the election clearing up there is a rallyy on wall street. This doesn't mean they support bush but have confidence that there will be stability
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041103/D864ETVG2.html
-
DamoclesX: yes just like the last four years
-
Originally posted by Kazan
YOU SUPPORT HIM SO MUCH - JOIN THE ARMY
You hate him so much, join Al-Qaeda.
-
I got to say, I dont like the idea of rummy being around
I dislike that guy, he is some civi who thinks he can go on and on with the generals and plan wars, sorry buddy, it just does not work that way.
I still think he is the one who screwed up the iraq war plan with his "less troops" crap.. ya right, invading every country and you need less troops? wtf lol
-
in reference to the status of the senate:
no, not really. many republican senators are from new england as well. I am speaking in general. For example, Arlen Spector would never vote for a gay marriage ban or partial birth abortion ban. However, there are some conservative democrats in the south that often go the other way. With Dachele kicked out, I am not sure what the status of the minority leadership in the senate is going to be like.
-
Mongoose: i don't hate America, i just hate what's being done to it
I bet you think that Al Qaeda hates "Freedom" and other bull**** abstractions that try to make them non-rational creatures in your mind
You like bush and his diversionary war so much - go enlist
-
Those Christo-fascists you hate, dood, if they are those born again everything in the bible is literal belive it or burn... last I heard they were over 100 million strong..
-
Kaz, look, I agree with you. But its not the end of the world. Bush Nixon and Reagan won by FAR larger margins than this. If you had been alive then, you would think that its the worst catastrophe ever.
But live goes on. Even after 8 years of Reagan and 4 years of Bush, Clinton got elected for 8 years. Sure, I may hate Clinton equally, but you don't. The point is, however bad it looks, its never as dramatic as it seems. Life goes on, and 4 years isn't all that long a wait.
-
I guess that sig points out about the only thing I actually agree fully with kazan on.
good thing I don't live in that country.
-
FFS Kazan, change your bloody signiature.
-
Rictor: It's the end of democracy in america -- orwell was only off by twenty years
-
*digs a hole*
*climbs in*
See you in four years
-
Oh, damn...
I just hope our dear italian proto dictator doesn't end the same way or i will seriously think about moving to sweden...
-
Yeah, but Italy has a precedent for how to deal with dictators.
String em up by a lampost - democracy in action.
-
Rictor, unfortunately Orwell wrote the manual to successful dictatorship since then... No one is going to hang berlusconi, i can just hope that some minor results we had recently are relevant nation wide...
-
Can't you guys keep this to a single thread? Despite all claims to the contrary, this is not a political discussion board.
Merged.
-
Did someone just merge the two threads or did we really have the same sequence of posts twice?
-
damoclesX yes they are
-
I am so glad I don't live in America. Further from the blast zone the better.
-
Numbers don't make them right, look at the way China was run for years ;)
-
exactly flipside
-
Originally posted by Black Wolf
FFS Kazan, change your bloody signiature.
Aww, let him leave it. Christo is that "artist" who does things like wrap islands in pink plastic. So how bad could a Christo-fascist be?
That being said, yesterday did convince/remind me that a great number of voters are stupid, stupid people.
-
see, now that you remind me of the alternate meaning, chirsto-fascists in the bible thumper sense suddenly don't sound so bad.
-
Originally posted by ZylonBane
That being said, yesterday did convince/remind me that a great number of voters are stupid, stupid people.
I couldn't agree with you more.
-
Originally posted by ZylonBane
That being said, yesterday did convince/remind me that a great number of voters are stupid, stupid people.
Indeed, the 18-25 demographic, predominantly pro-democrat, somehow didn't show up in large numbers for the vote.
-
Could you please stop associating fascism with religion?
It's like saying christo-stalinist...
Fascism was never, never based on religion, it always tried to control and cow it... No matter whatever "politicians" say in their gibberish speeches.
-
Umm, from what I've been reading and hearing on the radio, they did indeed show up. They just voted for Bush.
Kazan, quit being a spoil-sport Atheo-Fascist bugger and change you're sig. I'm asking you nicely. Please change your sig.
-
I think fascist is just being used as a synonym for "evil" these days, or more specifically, overly-authoritarian.
-
Whatever it is meant to be, the definition is incorrect.
See corporativism for a fitting description of what fascism means.
-
Well, look at it this way round, whatever Bush brings on America in the next 4 years, this time they really have no-one to blame but themselves.
-
Originally posted by Zarax
Whatever it is meant to be, the definition is incorrect.
See corporativism for a fitting description of what fascism means.
well, thats quite apt for both Bush and Kerry.
-
/me Listens "Pink Floyd - Money"
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Kazan, quit being a spoil-sport Atheo-Fascist bugger and change you're sig. I'm asking you nicely. Please change your sig.
He already did - it's not 7 storeys high now.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Umm, from what I've been reading and hearing on the radio, they did indeed show up. They just voted for Bush.
Kazan, quit being a spoil-sport Atheo-Fascist bugger and change you're sig. I'm asking you nicely. Please change your sig.
it's not very nicely when you are spouting terms that you cannot backup the validity of and making immature statements
I can backup the statement that bush-republicans are christo-fascists
If you want to try and validated your "atheo-fascist" garbage You have to begin by explaining how saying that everyone should have the freedom of religion and that government should stay out of religion (that means NO LEGISLATING ARTICLES OF FAITH) is "fascism"
-
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041103/D864IQ681.html
Grace and Dignity
-
All I will say is this.
Whilst Kazan is 100% entitled to his opinion and in some ways, I do agree with it, I think this is possibly the wrong place to be openly displaying or arguing it. It will gain nothing and only serve to annoy those that don't agree with him.
I know you are dissapointed Kaz, so am I to be honest, but the best course of action is to find out what action you can take to lessen the damage to a country you obviously love greatly. And people should understand that Kaz is angry not because he hates America, but because he has a lot of loyalty to it, if he hated it, he wouldn't care.
-
Thank you flipside - your statements are true
i just registered www.democrats08.com
-
10 million more people voted than in 2000, and Bush still won (albeit a small margin)
I fear for the sanity of the American majority.
-
Well, this is the proof that passively following the mass media is bad.
-
Hmm, maybe they'll learn a lesson and next time run a halfway decent candidate. Here's hoping.
-
No, they'll just wait bush to amend the constitution to get a 3rd mandate and send clinton back into the fray.
-
Originally posted by Zarax
Well, this is the proof that passively following the mass media is bad.
But wouldn't passively following the mass media have clinched a democrat victory! After all, CBS showed Bush ate babies during his stint in the TANG! Believe the papers from 1971 written last week!
-
Hilary Clinton for president in '08!!
-
If there's one thing I know, it's that I'm really grateful not to be in the States.
-
Shrike: The Associated Press managed to aquire the ACTUAL documents just a week before the election - ie won their FOIA lawsuit and got raw access to the archives
while the CBS documents were falsified, their content was correct
-
Originally posted by Zarax
/me Listens "Pink Floyd - Money"
Exactly what i was thinking. You're great.
If i was american, i'd actually feel like Kazan. 'Nough said.
What do you call it? Brain Washing? Yep, that's it.
Bush basically won (sadly) by only two EV. That should AT LEAST say something to him. Anyway, luck is that you can't be elected more than twice.
As one of my clients put it, "maybe for finally destroying USA a a lone and whole-wanting superpower, because that's what it actually is, we really need 4 more years of Bush." Time will come when America will realize that something "isn't right". How come the most wonderfull and liberal democratic Nation the world EVER had suddenly has become the most hated one in the world? And, no, not from Muslim only. Here you have a Romanic-Catholic who does juuust that.
My 2 cents.
-
No offence to anyone here, but right now, it's their own bloody fault. No ****ed up voting system or odd recounts to take the blame. Just, shear stupidity by majority.
The only problem is, we're just as ****ed as you are.
-
I'm a Criswell-Fascist myself.
(http://www.fantascienza.com/cinema/plan-nine-from-outer-space/media/Criswell.jpg)
You WILL pull the string!
-
1984 will show you the way.
'nuff said.
-
Between the Bible toting Christian Fanatics that give you the 'eye' when you tell them your agnostic, the Homophobic lackwits, and the Retarded Monkeys smoking space crack that we have running this country, I'm getting scared of living in the states...
Maybe another 4 years with the retarded monkey won't be so bad? Right? :(
-
Originally posted by CmdKewin
As one of my clients put it, "maybe for finally destroying USA a a lone and whole-wanting superpower, because that's what it actually is, we really need 4 more years of Bush."
My 2 cents.
Bingo. The system of alliances the Kerry promised to rebuild actually entrenched America in the position of hegemon. Provided he doesn't do anything supremely stupid, like start World War 3, I think another 4 years of Bush will be beneficial for the world, if not necessarily for those of us in the US.
-
Kazan, ditch the huge font on the signature. I mean, stop putting it back on your signature, it's annoying.
And CmdKewin and kasperl, cut the size on yours to something manageable, like four lines on standard text (including blank lines) and I won't have to do it for you.
-
You know, for all the anti-gay sentiment in the USA a lot of Americans today proved they love to get fucked in the ass.
Bunch of closet cases the lot of you.
-
Oh, what prompted this, if I may ask?
I'll fix it right away.
-
Dunno why you lot are getting so upset. Kazan's gonna be voting Republican in a decade or so. Winston Churchill said so, it's gotta be true!
Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.
-
Originally posted by kasperl
Oh, what prompted this, if I may ask?
I'll fix it right away.
My annoyance at huge signatures. :p
We've already posted an announcement about it a while ago, but keeping something like that up constantly wouldn't really work, so I tell people on a case-by-case basis when I find something. Signatures bigger than the posts add too much clutter to the boards.
:)
-
I have no brains according to Winston then :D
Woohoo!
-
I think Kazan's sig is a little off anyway, it shouldn't be "Christo-fascists" but rather "neo-conservatives", referring to Paul Wolfowitz and his buddies.
The fact that Bush was voted for by so many people is just baffling from here north of the border. Either americans have been so brainwashed by the Administration that they don't know any better, or that people vote along thier traditional party lines no matter whose in office or what the issues are. I mean, take the war on terror. To think that Bush is doing a good job through his invasion of Iraq is ludicrous.
For a similar example, I offer this. Let's say that the US finds it has 16 Cows with Mad Cow disease within their borders. After some searching, they discover that 12 cows came from canada, 2 from Brazil, 1 from Argentina and 1 Peru. In response to this threat to the health of the american public, the US shuts the US-Mexico border to beef.
Now, would that make any sense to americans? Would americans feel safer because of it? Let's say that Mexico had a history of trading substandard meats of other types like chickens, and so forth. Would it still make any sense??
If not, why in the hell would invading Iraq in some part of the war on terror make any sense, when most of the 9/11 hijackers and Osama Bin Laden are from Saudi Arabia? In fact, why would the US seem to place more importance on capturing Saddam Hussein rather than capturing Osama Bin Laden?
And then the Administration _lies_ and misleads the American people, and it's discovered that they lied and misled them, and even during the election campaign we have Bush saying "Iraq had links to terrorism" (referring to the Regime's donations of money to the families of Hamas suicide bombers) yet he leaves it open-ended, therefore implying to the people that these links were Al-qaeda related (even though it was shown they weren't), and thus Bush was still misleading everyone with the SAME bull**** and people still ate it up. Remember that this war on terror is targetting 'global-reaching terrorism', Hamas isn't one of those groups as I understand it, so it shouldn't be used as some twelth-string excuse for going to war with Iraq.
What this election has done is given the Bush Administration a new mandate to continue on with the neo-conservative vision to reform the middle east. I wouldn't be suprised if in the next four years, some place like Iran or Syria was also invaded and conquered by the US warmachine on some laughable pre-text of 'fighting the war on terror', but some dictatorship and indirect bush-election contributor like Saudia Arabia will likely never even be considered.
Oh well if there's one bright spot in all of this, as one person said on a CBC townhall the other day, Bush is good for the loonie! :ha:
-
After deliberating for an extensive period of time over how to most eloquently articulate my feelings on this monumental issue, I must ultimately resign myself to the realization that the situation with which we are confronted is best summarized in a simple but nonetheless timelessly effective idiom of the English language.
MAN, THIS SUCKS.
-
My signiture is in compliance. :p
Wow. Alot of people posted in the time I was reading this thread...
-
Akalabeth Angel: you're absolutely correct - we should have been dropping bombs on Saudi Arabia (my fiance just wrote a paper on this for International Security Policy)
-
so, you're not against war and violence as a way of resolving problems, you just disagree with which nation to go to war with.
...just so we're clear. You know, it makes sense, Saudi lives are simply worth less, so while Iraq is indeed a tragedy, doing the same to Saudi Arabia would be perfectly legitimate.
Shrike: see, thats the thing, Bush and his bunch aren't really conservative. They're just imperialists and fascists (by the true meaning of the word, not the politicized crap). Conservativism calls not only for fiscal responsibiity (ha!) but also a small government (ha!) and a non-interventionist foreign policy (ha!)
-
Rictor: when war is needed i don't disagree with it. War wasn't needed in Iraq.
Saudi Arabia openly funds terrorist organizations and has done so for years. The state religion is Wahhabist Islam - the most anti-western extremist sect.
"Saudi Lives are simply worthless" is appeal to emotion - sometimes war is neccesary that's a sad, but simple, fact of reality. If things are done right those lives that are inevitably lost and not lost in vain, and a better life is created for both sides
-
Did anyone happen to see the documentary that Frontline did called "Rumsfeld's War"? It illustrated with great clarity the process by which Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz bulldozed their war plan past all the military officials who actually knew what they were talking about. These people had an agenda before they even came into office, and they were not about to let the facts get in the way of their grand scheme, so they mapped out a cheap war and let Bush handle the publicity. Bush himself had little to do with it.
These people are political chess players for whom lives are calculator digits, and if they want two plus two to equal five, they'll pound it into the heads of the masses until it becomes true. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are the kind of people who rule empires, and they know it.
The point: It's not Bush I'm afraid of.
-
...just so we're clear. You know, it makes sense, Saudi lives are simply worth less, so while Iraq is indeed a tragedy, doing the same to Saudi Arabia would be perfectly legitimate.
Frankly I don't think the American Administration has much regard for the lives of the citizens of either country, and I'm not sure that the concern of the American public is that much greater. During the invasion of Iraq, Al-Jazeera showed daily pictures of bloodied Iraqi civilians and children, and no one gave a damn. Then one days the gruesome pictures weren't of civilians but of dead american soldiers and the entire country of the US was outraged that such pictures would even be broadcast, etcetera etcetera.
In a similar fashion, later on in the war the US targets and kills journalists (including Al-Jazeera) in three seperate attacks and for a moment, people start to loose confidence in the US Administration. But the next day the US stages some event in central Baghdad where they bring in some guys, pay 'em to dance around and pull down a statue and suddenly who cares about journalists? Who cares about the censorship of independent media, instead let's eat up some more US propaganda. After all, when US news media outlets are relying on information filtered through the US military, such information has to be unbiased and impartial right? haha.
-
Well, consider that the Saudi royalty aren't all that unassaible. If they weren't provided with poitical backing by Uncle Sam, they'de have some real problems on their hands. War is sometimes necessary, but if you're trying to get rid of a dictatorship, assuming you even have the right to do so, then there are better ways of going about it.
I support reform in Saudi Arabia, and cutting the royal family loose to face the world alone. Freeze their foreign assets, then see how long they'll hold out. And you can't honestly say that "Saudi Arabia" funs terrorism becuase however many people do it, its unreasonable to say that they are the majority.
Whitout political and economic backing, and international pressure for greater reform, the Saudi royalty would be forced to compromise. Not to mention that if the US invaded, you could expect military bases and foreign control over the oil, not to mention a puppet regime like in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I agree with humanitarian interventions IN THEORY, but every single case so far has been a cover for dominating the "liberated" country.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
And you can't honestly say that "Saudi Arabia" funs terrorism becuase however many people do it, its unreasonable to say that they are the majority.
yes you can - when the House of Saud itself does it
-
The point: It's not Bush I'm afraid of.
Nor am I. After seeing a few independent documentaries, it seems that greatest problem with Bush is his lack of knowledge, and thus his ability to be manipulated. As one CIA agent guy noted, Bush didn't even have a passport before he became president, how the hell can he know anything about foriegn countries and foreign policy?
One of the neo-cons, Wolfowitz or maybe that Richard Perl guy has an office in the pentagon near Rumsfeld's or Cheney's, despite having no official duties. As the documentary guy remarked, he's in a great position to influence the administration without being the slightest-bit accountable.
-
Myself and 15 friends including 3 who'd never voted before handed our votes to Kerry yesterday. I'm sorry it wasn't enough.
-
well, do you really think that the neocons are the begginging and end of aggressive US foreign policy? Think back to Reagan, Ford, Clinton, Bush 1...pretty much every administration in the past 60 years.
There's just a different set of people running the show this time, but its the same show.
Originally posted by ionia23
Myself and 15 friends including 3 who'd never voted before handed our votes to Kerry yesterday. I'm sorry it wasn't enough.
Never would have figured you as a Kerrycrat.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
RUMORS! it's RUMORS!
Nothing official from him
get over it. bush won...
-
In fact, I'm almost borderline devestated. What about the military vote? (support the troops people). All the familes and friends of the troops (as well as us soldiers). I'm here in country but bring my brothers and sisters overseas home!
People say the Democratic party is upset, well screw the Democrats I just hate Bush! I never follow politics and the very first time in 1988 I registered as Republican but voted Democrat, why? Lesser of two evils. Been the same ever since until this time around (I registered Democrat last month).
BTW if things continue to get worse I would advicate someone in the military to take action, part of our oath is to defend this nation against ALL enemies, both foreign and DOMESTIC!
My religion and sexual orientation are private as a citizen but a politician needs to do the best job for ALL the people (and think about them an SERVE them, NOT enforce your views or opinions on thier lives). So I say keep Jesus in your heart but out of the White House! (as the founding fathers preached!). Meanwhile our nation will fall behind in critical medical research and technology, I still have a ****ty job and no health care (reserve benefits are minimal to none. The Best era of my life professionally and economically was the clinton years.
I was in the Army during Gulf War I and Now Air Force Reserve.
BTW all this talk in the media about healing the nation is a joke. I was angered at Florida in 2000 and now with real issues on the line it's absolutely insane...
(as I write this) Bush just made a statement that this is a "historic victory". But excuse me, 59 million said we love you, but 55 million just said pike off. That is not "historic" that is by the skin of your teeth. get 75% or Higher and you will impress me, NOT 51%...
And don't start with the "popular vote" 3 mill is NOT a large number to win (or lose) by, more like a small to medium city... (compared to the TOTAL population of the United States).
One final word... Long ago I heard that there were about 270 Million american families. so far around 114 million votes cast. Where the hell are the rest of the people that could have voted? Lazy bastards (like my pot head 19yo co-worker, he says it doesn't make a difference). I quoted a week ago to him, "a non vote is a vote for Bush"...
-
just when i thought the immature comments from the christo-fascists were over
Someone winning a popularity contest doesn't mean they're right and it doesn't mean they're good for the country.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
yes you can - when the House of Saud itself does it
And since when does "the government" and "the people" mean the same thing? Especially in a country where there are no elections, so you can't even claim the people chose the governement like in the US.
The government is always the last to loose, its the people that almost always suffer during an invasion/occupation.
-
Rictor:When people support a government (or administration) that is corrupt/supports terrorists/etc the people supporting it are also corrupt/terrorist supporters/ etc
-
how can you say "the people" like that. First of all, realize that a war would affect all the people in the country, regardless of whether or not they support the Saudi royalty and/or terrorist. Next, realize that Saudi Arabia is a monarchy, so you have no way of knowing how many people support the government, because they have no way of showing their lack of support. And finally, realize that Saudi Arabia is a country of 25 miliion people, and if you believe that a majority actively support terrorists, you need to sit down and consider your views on the rest of the world.
oh and, after you have realized all that, it might also be helpful to realize that by any meaninful standard, Bush and Co are terrorists, if not the far more severe agressors, so any country that feels like invading the US (say, Nicargua, Iraq, Lebanon and so forth) would be justified in doing so, especially given that evidently, so many people support Bush (or Kerry, who also voted for the war). Its not wise to chastise others for supporting terrorism when you don't have the moral high ground.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Shrike: see, thats the thing, Bush and his bunch aren't really conservative. They're just imperialists and fascists (by the true meaning of the word, not the politicized crap). Conservativism calls not only for fiscal responsibiity (ha!) but also a small government (ha!) and a non-interventionist foreign policy (ha!)
So they're slightly more conservative than the democrats? Ultimately no US government can realistically be fiscally conservative any more. There's simply too much money and influence tied up for someone to say 'Ok, we're cutting everything by half' or however you wish to deal with things.
-
So conservatives are stuck voting for the slightly more conservative party, while progressives are stuck voting for the slightly more progressive party, but neither is truly conservative or progressive.
Awesome.
-
Fact:
Conservativism at the level required to actually entertain the current President as 'good' or 'worthy' requires a seed of bigotry and/or racism present.
People like Bush will continue to win so long as people continue to view Muslims and homosexuals as Walking Weapons Of Mass Destruction.
Voting for Bush is like taking Tool seriously: Both are indicitive of serious brain damage.
-
I'd just like to point out that - according to the national exit polls - the deciding factor of the candidates according to the largest amount of people (22%), was "Moral Values" (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html#1037). And in the category of "Moral Values", fully 80% of the people polled preferred Bush over Kerry.
And now, back to your regular bickering.
-
Sorry, doing cocaine, driving drunk, causing the deaths of 100,000 proplr, lying to the country and the world, cracking down on petty crimes and minor criminals, thats moral behaviour?
No, thats just the appearance of moral behaviour, because thats the way the strategists chose to spin Bush. It has little to do with reality.
-
Moral behaviour - putting Profit before Principle
Immoral Behavior - anal sex
Bushisms, gotta love 'em.
-
(http://home.att.net/~clay.h/ttlg/votenixon.png)
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Sorry, doing cocaine, driving drunk, causing the deaths of 100,000 proplr, lying to the country and the world, cracking down on petty crimes and minor criminals, thats moral behaviour?
No, thats just the appearance of moral behaviour, because thats the way the strategists chose to spin Bush. It has little to do with reality.
For once I agree with you 100% Rictor.
Well apart from the bit where you missed out his money grabbing greed and cronyism.
-
I'd rather be alongside his freaking motorcade through piles of excrement at him screaming "Charyou Tree!!!"
-
You people from foreign countries, and some of you from the US as well, just don't get it. Those of us who voted for Bush didn't do so because they were brainwashed, homophobic, or any other leftist BS reason. I voted for Bush because I agree with his stance with moral issues, because he did NOT lie about Iraq (try actually doing some research instead of repeating the party line ad nauseam), because he's not afraid to kick some terrorist ass, because he won't submit US authority to the United Nations (which is NOT a government, no matter what some people seem to believe), and because he puts through policies that have and will continue to stimulate economic recovery. Does that sound like someone who is brainwashed? I've been debating politics on the web for the past few years; I've read a crap-load of news stories from both sides. And, after all of that, I made the informed decision to vote for Bush. That's not being brainwashed; that's responsibly exercising my civic duty to vote. I have no problems if you disagree with my choice, but please, don't make a fool out of yourself and call me brainwashed.
P.S. Kazan, if all of that makes me a "Christo-fascist," then I'm damn proud to be one. It's funny; the more you continue your hatred against religion, the more you're going to strengthen people's faith. You're fighting a losing battle; give up and mind your own damn business. And ROFL at "democracy is dead;" we have the greatest number of voters ever and the largest percentage since 1960, and you have the balls to call democracy "dead"? Give me a break; if anything, this shows that democracy is stronger than it has been in a long time. Just because your candidate didn't win doesn't give you the right to go around whining about it.
-
you just repeated the party line mongoose
i recommend _YOU_ do some actual research about Iraq - but this is going no where
you're so convinced that bush is the ****ing messiah that he could eat babies live on TV and you'd still vote for him
I GOT NEWS FOR YOU: He is the worst president in US History
He ****s on the constitution every day
He has us attack countries were were clearly no threat to us and were not harboring terrorists - he then renegs on his promise/our responsibility to put them back togeather leading to the insurgency and the best recruiting campaign the terrorists could dream off
He practices economic policies that are nothing short of disasterous
i could go on, and on, and on but you wouldn't listen to any of it - i could drag your ass around iraq and SHOW you, i could take you on a tour of military history that shows what should have been done in iraq and why things are they way they are there, yada yada.
I COULD SHOW YOU UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE OF MY POSITION AND YET YOU WOULD STILL STICK TO YOUR "NO, BUSH IS THE BESTESTEST"
You are MISINFORMED Mongoose
The Economy ISN'T fine
The WERE NO WMD IN Iraq (And the Duelfer Report proves that)
There WERE NO LINKS BETWEEN SADDAM AND OSAMA (Duelfer Report again)
There are MORE terrrorists now than were in 2001
Bush doesn't care about osama - yet we know he's alive, and we know he giving the orders -- we could have captured him 2 years ago
There are countries taht actually DO support terrorism that we ignore.
Instead you're busy with "moral issues" - in other words YOU WANT TO SHUVE YOUR RELIGION DOWN OTHER PEOPLE'S THROATS - that's one of the many things that makes it christo-fascism (along with all the rights violations, the collusion of the mass media with the bush admin, etc)
YOU ARE MORE CONCERNED WITH FORCING OTHER AMERICANS TO TAKE YOUR RELIGION THAN YOU ARE WITH THE TRUTH OF CONDITIONS IN AMERICA AND IRAQ
-
Bush is the "bestest"? Where the hell did I say that? Bush is far from the best president we've had, but he's far better than that cardboard cutout that ran against him. I'm not spitting back any party line; I have done research, and I stick by what I posted. There were WMDs in Iraq between Gulf War I and now; we know that some of them were moved into Syria. In fact, I predict some serious pressure on them now that Bush has been re-elected. Look harder about the Iraq--Al-Qaeda issue; there were some dirty dealings between some AQ higher-ups and members of Saddam's government. As for more terrorists, I think not; every one that is killed is one less for us to worry about. Do you really think that Kerry would have been as agressive as Bush is? As for Bush not caring about Osama, that's too ridiculous to even warrant a response. He's on the run as we speak; his last desperate message is evidence of this. I give it about six months. We can't take care of every country that supports terrorism at once, but we'll get around to them.
If making sure that this country maintains some shred of moral decency against the rampant hedonism prevalent throughout popular culture is equal with "shoving religion down other people's throats," then I'll shove away. You don't like it, leave. Go to somewhere like the Netherlands; I hear they're not too concerned about morality over there. Rights violations, collusions with media...where do you come up with this bullcrap? Let me pull a "Kazan": irrelevant, illogical, and inconceivable. America is swinging back toward conservative values at long last; either learn to live with it or leave the country.
-
Mongoose: Cite your "reasearch" that counters the Duelfer Report
Just because there were WMD there once upon a time doesn't mean they were there when we invaded (Duelfer Report says: there were not any thing when we invaded)
Look harder about the Iarq--Al-Qaeda Issue: The Duelfer report says there was no link conclusively (Infact it has been widely known for over a decade that Osama and Saddam hate each other)
For every one insurgent we kill, two stand up to replace him. Do you seriously think you can reduce the ranks by killing when they're still recruiting?! You can NEVER kill faster than they can recruit - learn some military history.
Kerry as aggressive as bush? Absolutely, kerry just would have been dropping bombs on the right places, and actually putting Iraq back togeather so that the people there stop trying to kick us out.
Oh yes, osama's message looked "SOOO DESPERATE" -- Bush said it himself that he [bush] doesn't care about osama!
Originally posted by Mongoose
If making sure that this country maintains some shred of moral decency against the rampant hedonism prevalent throughout popular culture is equal with "shoving religion down other people's throats," then I'll shove away.
That violates our constitution and you know it ADMIT IT: YOU HATE FREEDOM!
Originally posted by Mongoose
You don't like it, leave.
IT'S MY COUNTRY TOO MOTHER****ER - IF YOU DON'T WANT TO RESPECT THE CONSTITUTION THEN I ADVISE _YOU_ TO LEAVE ASSHOLE
Originally posted by Mongoose
Rights violations, collusions with media...where do you come up with this bullcrap?
I could start citing sources - but you wouldn't believe it anyway - because of cognitive dissonance
but you just proved one of them in higher up in your own post
Originally posted by Mongoose
Let me pull a "Kazan": irrelevant, illogical, and inconceivable. America is swinging back toward conservative values at long last; either learn to live with it or leave the country.
yes "Conservative Values"
Hatred, Bigotry, Lies and the violation of human rights
I WILL RESORT TO FORCE OF ARMS TO SAVE THIS COUNTRY FROM THE LIKES OF YOU
-
Mongoose, with all due respect, but you're the perfect example for what the average European sees as a typical American these days. Cowboy-style, yeah. :rolleyes:
Apart from that : I once had an interesting conversation with an exchange student from the US, must have been back when the invasion in Iraq was underway. She defended the US policy, telling me that "liberating" Iraq was a good means to fortify democracy in the region, creating a paradigm for other states, a "safe haven". And now?
Just a thought.
-
One of our greatest political minds once said "You cannot spread democracy at the point of a gun"
-------------------
oh and BTW Mongoose - since it's ok to ignore the constitution and shuve our religions down each other's throats then i should start pushing for laws making it illegal to be a christian, on penalty of death by firing squad
-
Mongoose, buddy, I love ya, but you're talking out of your ass.
Here's a tip: if you're starting to sound like Rush Limbaugh, it may be time to take a step back and re-examine your views, how you came to hold them, and if they are based in fact or empty rhetoric.
The basic question, to my mind, that you and others need to ask yourself if "Should America dominate the world". If the answer is no, I don't reasonably see how you can support Bush (that does not, repeat not, mean that Kerry is different, or much different in any case).
If the answer is yes, congratulations, you're an imperialist: see you on the battlefield.
-
MADNESS!!!
Politics suck.
-
Fair enough, then. I'm an imperialist. I want America to continue to remain the world's greatest superpower. I see nothing wrong with this view; as an American citizen, I naturally want America to continue to prosper. And as much as this may shock some of you, I agree with most of what Limbaugh says.
Kazan, bashing my head repeatedly against a brick wall would produce something more cogent and effective than any discussion with you could. I give up; you're so wrapped up in some "quest for logic" that you're barely even human anymore. Congratulations, Mr. Spock. Here's a little hint: the world isn't based on rational thought or logic. If you ignore the role that human emotion plays in this world, you're walking a very dangerous path. I know you don't believe in God, but I thank him every day that people with similar viewpoints to me hold elected office in this country, and that no one as crazy as you does.
-
Mongoose you're a freaking fascist - you're openly and willingly violating the US Constitution
If i was in Office i would be protecting your rights - I would make sure christians are not imposing on muslims, atheists, agnostics, that mulsims aren't imposing on christians, atheists, agnostics.etc that atheists/agnostics are not imposing on christians, mulsims, etc
But you - you are ****ting on the constitution - you are imposing YOUR FORM of christianity on all other people be there some other form of christianity, or some other religion all togeather
YOU ARE A FASCIST
-
Originally posted by Kazan
I GOT NEWS FOR YOU: He is the worst president in US History
I'm sorry that dubious honor belongs to Jimmy Carter.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
I'm sorry that dubious honor belongs to Jimmy Carter.
AMEN.
-
Liberator: so you claim - but you don't look at the facts behind bush - you believe the lies
-
Originally posted by Rictor
I agree with humanitarian interventions IN THEORY, but every single case so far has been a cover for dominating the "liberated" country.
Not so. See East Timor and the Solomon Islands.
-
America is another blip on the timeline. As is the case with all world powers, the grace with which it fades will depend on the enlightenment of its population. Few empires pass this test with flying colors.
-
The 'humanitarian' angle. THis is one of my favorite subjects to **** with.
The thing in Iraq never had anything to do with being a 'humanitarian' mission. That's a smokescreen for the true objectives.
1. Disposing of a 'potential' threat to US security interests.
2. The acquisition of reconstruction projects to rebuild the country's infrastructure (see: Halliburton)
3. Cheap oil to pay the bill for rebuilding.
American Joe would be 'rewarded' with a whopping 5 cent decrease in the cost of gasoline per gallon, but the real winners would be the oil companies and their associated refineries. Iraq would be a huge asset for them. Of course, we'd have to have a more 'civilized' environment to work within (see: Narn/Centauri war).
If you want to see US security forces declared for a purely humanitarian cause, then why the **** aren't they where they are needed? (Sudan, Rwanda, Sierra-Leone)???
Oh, I forgot, no profit.
Voting for Bush was a sign of brain damage.
Bush 2004: Rise Of The 'Rednecks'.
Racism, bigotry, and bullying at it's finest. Way to go. Everything that happens to us for the next four years falls on YOUR heads.
-
Oh, and I suppose Saddam's genocide of millions and record of mental instability had nothing to do with it? And, big surprise, once again we have the "Bush voters are brain-damaged" line. At least get creative. I assure you that I have no mental deficiencies, and yet I proudly voted for Bush. Do you really think that the cardboard cut-out that is Kerry would do a better job than Bush? Personally, I'm looking forward to the next four years. The world will come out of Bush's next term better off, even though certain countries may deny this by pulling the proverbial wool over their eyes.
/cue Kazan in 3, 2, 1...
-
Actually, yes I do. Kerry is intelligent. Bush is popular. That's what this boiled down to.
And yes, it is brain damage. The 'new' Republican has emerged as an abrasive, racist bully that really needs the everloving **** beat out of him.
You cannot sell me on the concept that Camp Dubya gave two flying ****s about a bunch of dead Iraqis. They didn't have to. Their lives aren't worth as much as an American one to them. 9/11 happens on a daily basis over there and it's barely front-page news, but it happens here and the whole freakin' world goes to ****.
Consequently, the humanitarian angle goes right out the window too. A pathetic excuse for a fighting force in Iraq, and none whatsoever in Sierra-Leone. If you're going to be selling out the lives of our soldiers, make sure there's a damned good reason for it.
Dubya works on fear, just like any school bully does. As long as the focus can be kept on an enemy 'over there', you never have to worry about what's going on 'over here'.
more to the point, that feckless thug blurs the lines between Church and State way too damned much. As soon as that line is crossed you become Iran.
-
Kazan, calm down.
-
First of all, you guys need to cool down and grow up. If you want a debate, fine. Attack the arguments, don't attack eachother. Calling Moongoose a "motherf*****" is just childish and immature".
As for Iraq, no one is saying that Saddam was a good guy, but that doesn't change the fact that there was no basis to invade Iraq. Remember that Saddam Hussein is a leader that the US once supported, they sold him the WMD that he used on the Kurds and the Iranians, Dick Cheney was shaking his hand in the 80's.
If anyone supports the Bush Administration because of the 'moral authority' in which it invaded Iraq, I believe that you're mis-informed. The US didn't invade Iraq to help out the people of Iraq, that's simply naive, they did it to help themselves and probably to help Israel as well (for those of religious leaning).
During and since the war, the US has detained prisoners without charge in Cuba, they've paraded Iraqi prisoners and their dead on TV (only to complain when Al-Jazeera did it a few days later), the US states WMD as a the primary reason for their invading, even though the US still stockpiles thousands of nukes, and thousands of tons of all kinds of other **** like Anthrax and god knows what else. And on top of that they're probably the country to have used WMD the most, the only ones to use nukes on a civilian population (twice) and they dumped tons of Agent Orange on Vietnam and are killing children to this day. The US complains about the treatment of their POWs, and then shoves brooms up the a**** of Iraqi prisoners like good ole Ralph in Lord of the Flies (or whatever else they were doing). During the war they murder journalists (Al Jazeera) and they try to censor any media outlet which isn't spoon-fed information by the US military, etcetera.
And as Kazan has said, Iraq had no WMD. Hell they had no military to speak of in the first place. People should know that WMDs aren't bullets that you can put in a hole and dig out later, chemicals like Anthrax and other stuff which the US sold to Iraq has a shelf-life and will turn to crap after a few years. Unless Iraq had the means to re-produce more, they probably didn't have any.
When Colin power addressed the UN, he stated "oh, there's some WMD trucks". The US' own CIA stated they were milk trucks and laughed it off. Colin claimed that some building was a WMD factory, it turned out to be some striped empty shell. If the US knew where there were WMDs they would have got them and stopped them going into Syria.
As for al-qaeda links, Iraq was the most secular country in the middle-east. Al-Qaeda _hated_ them, they're muslim extermists or whatever. Do you think muslims would buddy up to some american-esque secular society? I don't think so.
Anyways, if you think the US cares about the people so much. Look at Afghanistan. Where the government's control ends at Kabul's city limits and the rest of the country is ruled by warlords. Is the worth of a person proportional to the amount of oil in their country???
-
ok I just want to touch on the Iraq-AlQeda thing,
Bin Laden founded Al Qeda becase of the gulf war and the subseqent stationing of US troops in the area around Iraq (in Saudi Arabia). over the years Sadam consistently thumbed his nose at the US, this made him quite popular amung the people of the world who hate America. as you said, in the 80s we allied ourselves with Sadam despite him being an 'evil atheist socalist' and our nation was run by ronald Regan, when you have a common enemy it becomes quite easy to teem up with someone you would otherwise hate.
-
*finger hovers*
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
ok I just want to touch on the Iraq-AlQeda thing,
Bin Laden founded Al Qeda becase of the gulf war and the subseqent stationing of US troops in the area around Iraq (in Saudi Arabia). over the years Sadam consistently thumbed his nose at the US, this made him quite popular amung the people of the world who hate America. as you said, in the 80s we allied ourselves with Sadam despite him being an 'evil atheist socalist' and our nation was run by ronald Regan, when you have a common enemy it becomes quite easy to teem up with someone you would otherwise hate.
Nice idea but lacking on the execution. There were no links between Bin Laden and Saddam.
If there were I have to ask why have the CIA and MI6 not been able to produce a single credible link in the last 3 years? Seriously. Not one.
-
Well, he did give money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, buts what is implicit when Bush says "terrorists" or "a connection to 9/11" is al Queda. Secondly, Hamas and their kind don't really attack American targets, so it could not be considered a threat to national security, even if he was working with them. And given how often the IDF bulldozes the houses of the families of suspected suicide bombers, the arguement could be made that the money is just balancing the equation and not actively supporting terrorism, since the families themselves haven't done anything wrong and in many cases don't even know what the person was up to..
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Nice idea but lacking on the execution. There were no links between Bin Laden and Saddam.
If there were I have to ask why have the CIA and MI6 not been able to produce a single credible link in the last 3 years? Seriously. Not one.
There is no Al-Queda, not in the sense of some overreaching international Islamist terrorist network. It was created on a base of lies/uproven statements from a 'defector' - a man who had stole from bin-Ladin, and became a witness for a US trial (with a multi-hundred-thousan dollar payoff)... this trial was when bin Laden was tried in his absence in March 2001 for involvement in the Nairobi embassy bombings. In order to do this - under the anti-organised crime laws - the US needed to establish an 'organisation' to try bin-Ladin.
Hence the concept of Al-queda was created.... even the name al-queda didn't exist prior to that trial, Bin-Laden himself never used it until post-September 11 (because by then - and now - the concept has become a key propaganda tool for both Islamic fundamentalism and neo-conservatism. But what al-queda is, is a loose collection of independent terrorist-stroke-Islamist groups funded - but not orchestrated - by Bin Ladin. The 9/11 plot itself was masterminded by another man. Likewise the Madrid attack, the Bali bomb - independent Islamist terrorists, possibly funded or loosely affiliated to Bin Ladin.
Ok, so what of the terrorist training camps? Well, they weren't... not in the sense of international terrorism. Many of those who trained there were training to fight for an Islamic revolution in their own or neightbouring countries - ala Afghanistan. In other words, not to attack foreign countries such as the US. (NB: the whole idea of international terrorism RE: Islamism was to stimulate mass uprising - an Islamic revolution - by 'inspiring' the masses by attacking high-visibility foreign countries whole cultural influences were corrupting 'Islamic' morals). And, of course, man or most of those died in the war in Afghanistan.
and there's not even been many arrests of 'al-queda' members.... in the UK more convictions have made on connections to Irish than Islamic terrorism... of something like 664 al-Queda suspects, only a tiny number (3?) were convicted, and for fund-raising. In the US, one group of Yemenis were convicted of 'planning to attack America' because they were playing paintball. alleged terror cells in New York and buffalo were nothing of the sort, and the evidence was virtually inconsequential. IIRC there have been no convictions of al-Queda members for actually planning an attack.
Or course, the myth has now become so pervasive it is itself a weapon... possibly it's even begun the impetus to create the al-Queda that was dreamed up. But I don't think al-queda is currently anything beyond a fundraising method for independent groups, and AFAIK there isn;t any concrete evidence to support some super-organized massive terrorist network.
NB: this is being recited as close as I can remember to the programme 'the Power of Nightmares' from BBC2 last night. You'd do well to track down a bittorrent link, it's pretty shocking stuff. Seriously, track it down (if you can) before responding.
-
lalalala
don't mind me ("http://isohunt.com/torrents.php?ihq=the+power+of+nightmares&ext=&op=and")
;) ;)
-
cheers
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
NB: this is being recited as close as I can remember to the programme 'the Power of Nightmares' from BBC2 last night. You'd do well to track down a bittorrent link, it's pretty shocking stuff. Seriously, track it down (if you can) before responding.
Seen it. I just wasn't going to type that all in for the benifit of those who hadn't seen it :D
You'll note that I said that there were no links between Bin Laden (the man) and Saddam rather than mentioning Al-Queda at all.
Rictor I was about to reccomend you in particular hunted down a copy of that show cause I knew you'd enjoy it :)
-
Originally posted by karajorma
You'll note that I said that there were no links between Bin Laden (the man) and Saddam rather than mentioning Al-Queda at all.
Bin Laden and Saddam were enemies. However, the Bin Laden family financially supported Bush and Co. Now here's where a link does indeed exist.
-
Aha!
Bin Ladin friends support Bush. Bush (snr) supported Saddam prior to 1st Gulf War. that's the connection!
:nervous:
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Kazan, calm down.
I will Absolutely not - I am NOT going to take my country being turned into a theocracy sitting
-
I find it quite uncomfy to type standing up, myself.
-
While shouting and insulting may not be the way, Kazan is absolutely right.
-
Agreed. To simply accept it is to condone it.
-
shouting insults is a much better way of venting my righteous rage than some other things i could do
-
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or, being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or, being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise;
If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with triumph and disaster
And treat those two imposters just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with wornout tools;
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on";
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings - nor lose the common touch;
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run -
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man my son!
(I don't know why. Seemed appropriate for some reason)
-
Originally posted by Kazan
I will Absolutely not - I am NOT going to take my country being turned into a theocracy sitting
then do something about it man, sitting here yelling at us about it isn't going to change anything.
-
Stealth: there is a reason why i registered democrats08.com
-
True words Aldo.
Can't remember who wrote it, but I seem to recall he was Scottish too :)
It's a pity you don't have something like Speakers Corner in the US Kazan, though I don't doubt if such a thing did exist it would have been deemed either illegal or terrorist by now ;)
-
Originally posted by Flipside
True words Aldo.
Can't remember who wrote it, but I seem to recall he was Scottish too :)
Rudyard Kipling (born in India, actually)
-
Ah right! My mistake :)
Theres a wonderful quote in Prestwick Airport from Robert Burns. The language takes a bit of getting used to, but once you do, you realise what an inspired poet he was :)
-
You realize the worst part of all this?
Hillary Clinton will win the next election.
-
"Speakers Corner"?
-
In Covent Garden in London, there is a spot where people can stand and give their opinions on anything from World Politics to the 2000 Grand Prix. If people passing want to debate the issue, they are quite free to. It's the scene of some really interesting, and sometimes heated debates, but is, at least in my eyes, a true definition of Freedom of Speech. You cannot be arrested for Slander etc whilst at speakers corner, though, you can be arrested for inciting a riot if you get too carried away ;)
-
Cool stuff that one...
Too bad that without media attention no one is going to care...
-
we're suppose to have the freedom of speech _everywhere_ that is public land
but a spot for people to meet and debate in every major citty would be pretty cool
-
Kaz, why don't you set up an internet radio to show your ideas?
With a little effort it may bacome something constructive.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
In Covent Garden in London, there is a spot where people can stand and give their opinions on anything from World Politics to the 2000 Grand Prix. If people passing want to debate the issue, they are quite free to. It's the scene of some really interesting, and sometimes heated debates, but is, at least in my eyes, a true definition of Freedom of Speech. You cannot be arrested for Slander etc whilst at speakers corner, though, you can be arrested for inciting a riot if you get too carried away ;)
IIRc you can be arrested for slandering the Queen, though. I think that's more of a holdover from the last few centuries than an enforced rule.
I've never been there, but the nice thing is not so much the ability to speak, but the fact that people know they can go there are listen. I don't think there's any other equivalent in the Uk, though.... I've seen the odd dmeonstration (mostly over Iraq) in Glasgow, but there's not a dedicated permanent speaking bit.
Possibly the internet will take over that role over time... after all, it has here.
-
[q]not a dedicated permanent speaking bit.[/q]
You think either Jack McConnel or the City Council would let that happen? :lol:
-
Zarax: that's an interesting idea.. but i don't have the time or the bandwidth for it
-
You can always pre-record some stuff in a streaming format and place it on some free webspace...
Just my two .02€
-
i don't need free space - i have a 1and1 account :D
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Seen it. I just wasn't going to type that all in for the benifit of those who hadn't seen it :D
You'll note that I said that there were no links between Bin Laden (the man) and Saddam rather than mentioning Al-Queda at all.
Rictor I was about to reccomend you in particular hunted down a copy of that show cause I knew you'd enjoy it :)
Also, read a book called "Al-Queda" by Jason Burke
It covers absolutely everything to do with militant Islam, it's very dry but absolutely eye opening.
-
Fundamentals of Extremism is required reading
-
Originally posted by Kazan
we're suppose to have the freedom of speech _everywhere_ that is public land
Does the term "Free speech zones" ring a bell?
It USED to be that you had freedom of speech. You've been without it for quite a while.
-
Originally posted by 01010
Also, read a book called "Al-Queda" by Jason Burke
Unless I'm much mistaken he was one of the talking heads on the BBC2 program.
-
Lightspeed: yes i know
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Unless I'm much mistaken he was one of the talking heads on the BBC2 program.
Very possible, I'm sure he's a BBC journalist, I missed it last night though. I think they should be showing that program in schools and in America.