PDA

View Full Version : Why we should invade France.



Section126
07-22-2004, 12:52 PM
I agree that we should do this.......Bush should go to the UN next week to tell them that France must be invaded......

Here is the Link:

http://invadefrance.us/

You can add to the reasons why we SHOULD invade France:

Helped Iraq with Nuclear Technology including the construction of a Nuclear Reactor that had the Israeilies not destroyed .....would have given Saddam at least 5 Nuclear Bombs by the 1991 Gulf War.......

Helped Pakistan obtain Nuclear technology that they DID exploit to produce what is now believed to be around 25 Nuclear Weapons.

Provided the guidance technology to North Korea that North Korea has adapted to there AA missle batteries that populate the DMZ today.

Helped China with reactor technology that helped the Chi-Coms produce there first Nuclear Powered Submarine.......The first of 40 that they wish to produce.

Worked closely and continues to work closely with Enemies of the U.S.A. in the War on Terror. (Syria, Iran, and Sudan)

Helped install the Warlord culture that exists in Africa today which has led to millions of deaths due to genocide.

There are many more......Too many to list...but there are the biggies....

Clumpy
07-22-2004, 02:55 PM
Are you gonna enlist?

PhinPhan1227
07-22-2004, 03:01 PM
The US having to "Invade France" would be like Fabio having to "Rape a nymphomaniac". Basically all you have to do is show up and you're in. Heck, just send a letter..

USA: "Dear France, we are going to inva...

France: "WE SURRENDER!!!!"

;)

t2thejz
07-22-2004, 04:48 PM
The US having to "Invade France" would be like Fabio having to "Rape a nymphomaniac". Basically all you have to do is show up and you're in. Heck, just send a letter..

USA: "Dear France, we are going to inva...

France: "WE SURRENDER!!!!"

;)
Good Point! They should at least be kicked out of the UN. The country is going downhill every year anyway and I love it.

Karl_12
07-22-2004, 05:00 PM
Are you gonna enlist?Exactly. I always hear conservatives beating the drums of war, but they have never served in the military. Kind of like the chicken hawks running the Whitehouse Ha let's invade France boy that is a knee slipper. It is this kind of "intelligence that makes the rest of the world think we are obnoxious. Yeah we hate the French so we wont call them French fries any more we will call them Freedom Fries. I am glad to know that you would find the death of thousands of innocent civilians, American, and French solders amusing.

t2thejz
07-22-2004, 05:01 PM
Exactly. I always hear conservatives beating the drums of war, but they have never served in the military. Kind of like the chicken hawks running the Whitehouse Ha let's invade France boy that is a knee slipper. It is this kind of "intelligence that makes the rest of the world think we are obnoxious. Yeah we hate the French so we wont call them French fries any more we will call them Freedom Fries. I am glad to know that you would find the death of thousands of innocent civilians, American, and French solders amusing.
For your info most people in the Military are republicans

Karl_12
07-22-2004, 05:27 PM
I am talking about the Chicken Hawk right wing Republicans, ones like your President.

t2thejz
07-22-2004, 05:34 PM
I am talking about the Chicken Hawk right wing Republicans, ones like your President.


Haha do you know what a chicken hawk is? IF anyone one is its your boy Kerry. Damn just look at the guy. LOL and libs are always the ones preaching political correctness. :shakeno:

ohall
07-22-2004, 05:50 PM
Exactly. I always hear conservatives beating the drums of war, but they have never served in the military. Kind of like the chicken hawks running the Whitehouse Ha let's invade France boy that is a knee slipper. It is this kind of "intelligence that makes the rest of the world think we are obnoxious. Yeah we hate the French so we wont call them French fries any more we will call them Freedom Fries. I am glad to know that you would find the death of thousands of innocent civilians, American, and French solders amusing.

This is a problem with some ppl. Some ppl like Clump have a very simple minded way of thinking about these things. If we were to use his logic only military ppl would hold political positions within our government, and reg citizens would not have a voice. And in time we would no longer be a democracy. Think about what the TWO of you are implying here.

Also the last time I checked Bush #43 was in the National Guard. Are you implying he didn't serve his country? I'll put it to you this way, he sure served his country as far as military service goes a heck of a lot better than Clinton ever did.

Oliver...

ohall
07-22-2004, 05:50 PM
I am talking about the Chicken Hawk right wing Republicans, ones like your President.



The only chicken hawk running for President is Kerry.

Oliver...

Karl_12
07-22-2004, 05:53 PM
Haha do you know what a chicken hawk is? IF anyone one is its your boy Kerry. Damn just look at the guy. LOL and libs are always the ones preaching political correctness. :shakeno:
Uhhh John Kerry served in Vietnam while Dubya was definding Texas from the Viet-Cong; though he did do a good job because not one single Viet-Cong ever attacked Texas. And I do know what chicken hawk is. The call Pro war people Hawks and pro Peace Doves. Well Politicians like your President, Dick Cheney, and Rush Limbaugh are Chicken Hawks; people who support war but didn't have the guts to fight in one.

iceblizzard69
07-22-2004, 05:54 PM
Good Point! They should at least be kicked out of the UN. The country is going downhill every year anyway and I love it.

No country should be kicked out of the UN. Anyway, the US is definitely part of the reason why France has the status it has in the UN.

Also, France helped us during the war on terror. They weren't against us when we went into Afghanistan. I find it funny that people keep on bashing France and France alone when most countries in the world were against the war. Why aren't we bashing Germany? Russia? Why is 99% of bashing for not supporting the war on Iraq directed at France? I don't agree with their position, but the hatred for that nation in this country is embarassing and stupid. France has been on our side almost all of the time since this country came into existance. They might not be good at war and we may have bailed them out a few times, but France has always been a friend to the US. There are a lot of nations in the world that are a lot worse than France.

Karl_12
07-22-2004, 05:57 PM
This is a problem with some ppl. Some ppl like Clump have a very simple minded way of thinking about these things. If we were to use his logic only military ppl would hold political positions within our government, and reg citizens would not have a voice. And in time we would no longer be a democracy. Think about what the TWO of you are implying here.

Also the last time I checked Bush #43 was in the National Guard. Are you implying he didn't serve his country? I'll put it to you this way, he sure served his country as far as military service goes a heck of a lot better than Clinton ever did.

Oliver...
Yes, but Clinton didn't rush into war under false pretences costing us almost a thousand American solders. And tell me how is John Kerry a Chicken Hawk?

t2thejz
07-22-2004, 06:00 PM
Yes, but Clinton didn't rush into war under false pretences costing us almost a thousand American solders. And tell me how is John Kerry a Chicken Hawk? Well in case you didnt know John Kerry did support the War. Kerry served his country in Nam but then he came back and acted like the biggest puss ive ever seen

Karl_12
07-22-2004, 06:00 PM
No country should be kicked out of the UN. Anyway, the US is definitely part of the reason why France has the status it has in the UN.

Also, France helped us during the war on terror. They weren't against us when we went into Afghanistan. I find it funny that people keep on bashing France and France alone when most countries in the world were against the war. Why aren't we bashing Germany? Russia? Why is 99% of bashing for not supporting the war on Iraq directed at France? I don't agree with their position, but the hatred for that nation in this country is embarassing and stupid. France has been on our side almost all of the time since this country came into existance. They might not be good at war and we may have bailed them out a few times, but France has always been a friend to the US. There are a lot of nations in the world that are a lot worse than France.
:up:

t2thejz
07-22-2004, 06:01 PM
No country should be kicked out of the UN. Anyway, the US is definitely part of the reason why France has the status it has in the UN.

Also, France helped us during the war on terror. They weren't against us when we went into Afghanistan. I find it funny that people keep on bashing France and France alone when most countries in the world were against the war. Why aren't we bashing Germany? Russia? Why is 99% of bashing for not supporting the war on Iraq directed at France? I don't agree with their position, but the hatred for that nation in this country is embarassing and stupid. France has been on our side almost all of the time since this country came into existance. They might not be good at war and we may have bailed them out a few times, but France has always been a friend to the US. There are a lot of nations in the world that are a lot worse than France.Sooo they helped us out because they wernt against us going to Afghan. Hmm maybe I should send them a thank you card. Read the first post for more reasons why we hate France. Another thing a big reason why they didnt support us going into Iraq was because they had some scandelous oil deals going on with them. I dont know how your friends are to you but France is no way in hell has been a friend to us. You have got to be kidding :shakeno:

Karl_12
07-22-2004, 06:07 PM
Well in case you didnt know John Kerry did support the War. Kerry served his country in Nam but then he came back and acted like the biggest puss ive ever seenYes he did support the war with the lies that where given about Iraq's WMD's.

So he spoke out against the Vietnam war after he served his time. How dose that make him a "puss"?

Marino1983
07-22-2004, 07:12 PM
For your info most people in the Military are republicans


:roflmao:

Are YOU for real ?????


This has to be the most funniest statements YET from a right-winger !!!

:roflmao:

Marino1983

PhinPhan1227
07-22-2004, 07:16 PM
Exactly. I always hear conservatives beating the drums of war, but they have never served in the military. Kind of like the chicken hawks running the Whitehouse Ha let's invade France boy that is a knee slipper. It is this kind of "intelligence that makes the rest of the world think we are obnoxious. Yeah we hate the French so we wont call them French fries any more we will call them Freedom Fries. I am glad to know that you would find the death of thousands of innocent civilians, American, and French solders amusing.


US Army Light Infantry...pleased to meet you. Oh..and Bush is your President too...unless you've renounced US citizenship.

PhinPhan1227
07-22-2004, 07:18 PM
Yes, but Clinton didn't rush into war under false pretences costing us almost a thousand American solders. And tell me how is John Kerry a Chicken Hawk?


Are you aware that Bill Clinton cut our military in half...but also sent that decimated military into more conflicts than the three Presidents before him COMBINED?

PhinPhan1227
07-22-2004, 07:20 PM
:roflmao:

Are YOU for real ?????


This has to be the most funniest statements YET from a right-winger !!!

:roflmao:

Marino1983


What's funny about it? I served in the military. You would have had to poll 30 people before you found a Democrat when I served. If you doubt anecdotal evidence, just look up the polling figures for how many military people vote Republican. The numbers are skewed HARD to the right.

PhinPhan1227
07-22-2004, 07:21 PM
No country should be kicked out of the UN. Anyway, the US is definitely part of the reason why France has the status it has in the UN.

Also, France helped us during the war on terror. They weren't against us when we went into Afghanistan. I find it funny that people keep on bashing France and France alone when most countries in the world were against the war. Why aren't we bashing Germany? Russia? Why is 99% of bashing for not supporting the war on Iraq directed at France? I don't agree with their position, but the hatred for that nation in this country is embarassing and stupid. France has been on our side almost all of the time since this country came into existance. They might not be good at war and we may have bailed them out a few times, but France has always been a friend to the US. There are a lot of nations in the world that are a lot worse than France.

Agreed, no country should be kicked out of the UN. But they SHOULD be kicked out of NATO. They already are practically since they lost their veto power when they chose to remove themselves from any NATO military connections.

CirclingWagons
07-22-2004, 07:25 PM
US Army Light Infantry...pleased to meet you. Oh..and Bush is your President too...unless you've renounced US citizenship.
"and Bush is your President too"

unfortunately

AntiTrust
07-22-2004, 08:09 PM
I am talking about the Chicken Hawk right wing Republicans, ones like your President.




YOUR President? Your not American? Then get the **** out! If you are American, then news flash, he is your President.

AntiTrust
07-22-2004, 08:21 PM
Uhhh John Kerry served in Vietnam while Dubya was definding Texas from the Viet-Cong; though he did do a good job because not one single Viet-Cong ever attacked Texas. And I do know what chicken hawk is. The call Pro war people Hawks and pro Peace Doves. Well Politicians like your President, Dick Cheney, and Rush Limbaugh are Chicken Hawks; people who support war but didn't have the guts to fight in one.

OK, John Kerry was in Vietnam for 6 months, 3 months of that where spent offshore, he wasn't even there long enough to get a good tan, let alone earn three purple hearts in a war where they didn't hand out medals. Did he get the purple hearts? sure, but how he got them should raise red flags. And to attack a man who served regaurdless of where, just shows your lack of knowledge. Not everyone went to Vietnam, does that make evey military person who stayed state side or in Europe a Dubya? Your logic is flawed!

ohall
07-22-2004, 08:33 PM
Yes, but Clinton didn't rush into war under false pretences costing us almost a thousand American solders. And tell me how is John Kerry a Chicken Hawk?

Yes Clinton did, it was called Kosovo. However his course of action only put our airmen lives in danger. There's nothing like waging war with one leg rather than commiting your entire body to the effort. That last sentence was sarcastic by the way.

I don't think either Clinton or Bush #43 took any of us into a war(s) under false pretences. If there were false pretences in either war, Kosovo and Iraq #2 the blame is squarely on the intelligent agencies. Namely the CIA and FBI.

Kerry is a chicken hawk because at one time he was a hawk, he fought in Vietnam, and now he is anti war so he's a chicken. It ain't that hard to figure out man.

Just in case you didn't know, Clinton went to war with Kosovo without the UN's approval. When Bush #43 went to war with Iraq he had UN resolution 1441 on his side. Your definition of rushing into a war is quite funny to me. 14 failed UN resolution and 13-years of failed deplomacy is not what I call rushing into anything!

Oliver...

ohall
07-22-2004, 08:39 PM
Yes he did support the war with the lies that where given about Iraq's WMD's.

So he spoke out against the Vietnam war after he served his time. How dose that make him a "puss"?

Please list the lies, because I don't recall any of these so called lies.

Our President, Kerry and Edwards all came to the same conclusion based on the same set of intelligence. If you blame Bush #43 you had better blame Kerry and Edwards. Kerry and Edwards made even stronger cases to invade Iraq before the war. I suggest you do your homework and get informed on this subject. Because your guys if dirty on this are just as dirty as Bush #43.

Oliver...

iceblizzard69
07-22-2004, 09:11 PM
Well in case you didnt know John Kerry did support the War. Kerry served his country in Nam but then he came back and acted like the biggest puss ive ever seen

Kerry isn't a "puss." He spoke out against the Vietnam war which was a stupid war. Do you think it was a smart idea to go into Vietnam? He was against the war but he served his country anyway, he definitely isn't a "puss." I don't care if he was against the Vietnam war because we should have never invaded Vietnam in the first place.

iceblizzard69
07-22-2004, 09:15 PM
Sooo they helped us out because they wernt against us going to Afghan. Hmm maybe I should send them a thank you card. Read the first post for more reasons why we hate France. Another thing a big reason why they didnt support us going into Iraq was because they had some scandelous oil deals going on with them. I dont know how your friends are to you but France is no way in hell has been a friend to us. You have got to be kidding :shakeno:

France supported the invasion of Afghanistan. They spoke out in favor of doing that. Also, you need to read a history book or something. During the history of this country, France has been one of the USA's best friends.

t2thejz
07-22-2004, 09:28 PM
France supported the invasion of Afghanistan. They spoke out in favor of doing that. Also, you need to read a history book or something. During the history of this country, France has been one of the USA's best friends.
What does that have to do with anything the world has change so much over the past 75 years, and anyone who cries for a medal that they probably dont even deserve is a puss. Does he need a medal to proove that hes tough or man. He shouldnt be fighting for medals (even though he didnt) he should be fighting for his country. In my mind he is a coward, and what has France done for us thats so good. Saved us in the Revolutionary war. Maybe but that was almost 250 years ago. Do we still hate England because of it.Uhh know. Do we still owe the French for that. Uhh hell no. I dont know but I think the world has changes a bit since then

Marino1983
07-22-2004, 10:25 PM
What's funny about it? I served in the military. You would have had to poll 30 people before you found a Democrat when I served. If you doubt anecdotal evidence, just look up the polling figures for how many military people vote Republican. The numbers are skewed HARD to the right.



:lolcry: YOU will NEVER convince ME that the above :laughat: statement is factual !!!!!

:shakeno: It's kinda of sad that YOU seem to have an answer for EVERY post in this forum PP ...

YOUR slanted right wing facts / figures / opinions are just hilarious !!

What kills me is that when ANYone, "me for instance" post's their opinions of YOUR party and the dislike of W you seem to take it personal ..



http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif


Marino1983

Marino1983
07-22-2004, 10:33 PM
YOUR President? Your not American? Then get the **** out! If you are American, then news flash, he is your President.


:huh:

Yeah and I bet that YOU felt the same way about Clinton ....

And while W is the president,, ""NEWS FLASH"" alot of people didn't vote for him, hence they do not consider W THEIR president !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :nono:

Just as I do not consider him MY president !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:www:


Marino1983

ohall
07-22-2004, 10:58 PM
:lolcry: YOU will NEVER convince ME that the above :laughat: statement is factual !!!!!

:shakeno: It's kinda of sad that YOU seem to have an answer for EVERY post in this forum PP ...

YOUR slanted right wing facts / figures / opinions are just hilarious !!

What kills me is that when ANYone, "me for instance" post's their opinions of YOUR party and the dislike of W you seem to take it personal ..



http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif


Marino1983

Hey M-83 military ppl do slant to the REP side, mainly because REP's take care of the military much better than when DEM's are in office. REP's believe in a smaller government and a larger military. DEM's believe in a larger government and a smaller military.

I don't think you'll find many ppl who would argue with 1227's statement about where the military votes as a voting block.

Oliver...

ohall
07-22-2004, 11:08 PM
:huh:

Yeah and I bet that YOU felt the same way about Clinton ....

And while W is the president,, ""NEWS FLASH"" alot of people didn't vote for him, hence they do not consider W THEIR president !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :nono:

Just as I do not consider him MY president !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:www:


Marino1983Then they can leave the freaking country. Just because some DEM's are irrational and want to make things personal with this President because they feel cheated this doesn't make their immature arguments that he is not a legitimate President correct. Was JFK a legitimate President? After all if Nixon wanted to he could have pulled an Al Gore before Al Gore pulled an Al Gore.

Honestly some of you need to bone up hard on your American history. Stop insulting your country by insulting our President during times of war. This insanity has to stop or we are all going to pay a steep price. This kind of irrational banter from one political party is giving aid and comfort to our enemies. When they hear and see some of the stuff coming out of some DEM's mouths they get a boost and this empowers them.

You have to admit it doesn't worry them or depress their spirits when they see the DEM party making mean and insulting statements directed at the standing President?

No one is saying not to disagree and to express your disagreement with the President, but for God's sake have some respect for yourself and for the country you live in! That man is the leader of your country. No amount of crying, whinning is going to change that FACT.

Please remember M-83 you know how much I respect you. I'm not trying to slam you here man. I just see this kind of thing as a total disrespect to yourself and to the country I assume you live in. If someone loves this country they should always try and make their arguments respectful when that argument includes the President of our country.

Oliver...

AntiTrust
07-22-2004, 11:28 PM
France supported the invasion of Afghanistan. They spoke out in favor of doing that. Also, you need to read a history book or something. During the history of this country, France has been one of the USA's best friends.

Was France our best friends when Charles DeGaul ordered "ALL American's out of France" in which the President responded "Does that include the Americans that fought and died and are buried there?" or the time that the people of France went into the grave site of our troops and defaced their graves?

Just wondering?

AntiTrust
07-22-2004, 11:31 PM
Then they can leave the freaking country. Just because some DEM's are irrational and want to make things personal with this President because they feel cheated this doesn't make their immature arguments that he is not a ligament President correct. Was JFK a ligitment President? After all if Nixon wanted to he could have pulled an Al Gore before Al Gore pulled an Al Gore.

Honestly some of you need to bone up hard on your American history. Stop insulting your country by insulting our President during times of war. This insanity has to stop or we are all going to pay a steep price. This kind of irrational banter from one political party is giving aid and comfort to our enemies. When they hear and see some of the stuff coming out of some DEM's mouths they get a boost and this empowers them.

You have to admit it doesn't worry them or depress their spirits when they see the DEM party making mean and insulting statements directed at the standing President?

No one is saying not to disagree and to express your disagreement with the President, but for God's sake have some respect for yourself and for the country you live in! That man is the leader of your country. No amount of crying, whinning is going to change that FACT.

Please remember M-83 you know how much I respect you. I'm not trying to slam you here man. I just see this kind of thing as a total disrespect to yourself and to the country I assume you live in. If someone loves this country they should always try and make their arguments respectful when that argument includes the President of our country.

Oliver...

Oliver for President!!!

Karl_12
07-22-2004, 11:49 PM
YOUR President? Your not American? Then get the **** out! If you are American, then news flash, he is your President.
So you are saying if I am not an American citizen I can not post here?

W is the President of the United States of America yes, but I will never say he is my President.

Karl_12
07-22-2004, 11:57 PM
US Army Light Infantry...pleased to meet you. Oh..and Bush is your President too...unless you've renounced US citizenship.Nice to meet you PhinPhan. Thanks for serving our country. :patriot:

And no I can still be a citizen and disagree with our leader, I am sure you didn't support Clinton so why ask me to support Bush?

Karl_12
07-23-2004, 12:14 AM
OK, John Kerry was in Vietnam for 6 months, 3 months of that where spent offshore, he wasn't even there long enough to get a good tan, let alone earn three purple hearts in a war where they didn't hand out medals. Did he get the purple hearts? sure, but how he got them should raise red flags. And to attack a man who served regaurdless of where, just shows your lack of knowledge. Not everyone went to Vietnam, does that make evey military person who stayed state side or in Europe a Dubya? Your logic is flawed!Wow your rant reminds me of a column from a classy lady named Ann Coulter said of another Vietnam soldier Max Cleland who lost three limbs. Here is what she said:




Cleland lost three limbs in an accident during a routine noncombat mission where he was about to drink beer with friends. He saw a grenade on the ground and picked it up. He could have done that at Fort Dix. In fact, Cleland could have dropped a grenade on his foot as a National Guardsman – or what Cleland sneeringly calls "weekend warriors." Luckily for Cleland's political career and current pomposity about Bush, he happened to do it while in Vietnam.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20040212.shtml

DolFan31
07-23-2004, 11:13 AM
I got a better idea...lets go after terrorists!

DolFan31
07-23-2004, 11:27 AM
Then they can leave the freaking country. Just because some DEM's are irrational and want to make things personal with this President because they feel cheated this doesn't make their immature arguments that he is not a ligament President correct. Was JFK a ligitment President? After all if Nixon wanted to he could have pulled an Al Gore before Al Gore pulled an Al Gore.

Honestly some of you need to bone up hard on your American history. Stop insulting your country by insulting our President during times of war. This insanity has to stop or we are all going to pay a steep price. This kind of irrational banter from one political party is giving aid and comfort to our enemies. When they hear and see some of the stuff coming out of some DEM's mouths they get a boost and this empowers them.

You have to admit it doesn't worry them or depress their spirits when they see the DEM party making mean and insulting statements directed at the standing President?

No one is saying not to disagree and to express your disagreement with the President, but for God's sake have some respect for yourself and for the country you live in! That man is the leader of your country. No amount of crying, whinning is going to change that FACT.

Please remember M-83 you know how much I respect you. I'm not trying to slam you here man. I just see this kind of thing as a total disrespect to yourself and to the country I assume you live in. If someone loves this country they should always try and make their arguments respectful when that argument includes the President of our country.

Oliver...

1.You really need to stop telling people what to say and what not to say. Its mroe Anti-American to support censorship than it is to burn the flag. The First Admenment was written for all times, not to exclude war times. Where does it say we have a right to Freedom of Speech except in times of war.

2.Sometimes its more dangerous to support a leader than to speak out against him(see Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Pinochet, ect. ect. ect.!)

3.The only thing that is giving aid and comfort to our enemies is the fact we keep our troops in their "holy land" and keep ourselves at war(bombings and such) over there which is giving them more ammunicion to recruit more people.

4. You need to get over the fact that just because someone disagrees with you, our leader or our country that means they have to leave the country. The greatest thing about this country is you dont have to accept everything the country does or stands for, the fact that we can change America for the better(which is what liberals are for). Not everyone is a democracy-hating conservative.

Kencoboy
07-23-2004, 12:06 PM
Then they can leave the freaking country. Just because some DEM's are irrational and want to make things personal with this President because they feel cheated this doesn't make their immature arguments that he is not a ligament President correct. Was JFK a ligitment President? After all if Nixon wanted to he could have pulled an Al Gore before Al Gore pulled an Al Gore.

Honestly some of you need to bone up hard on your American history. Stop insulting your country by insulting our President during times of war. This insanity has to stop or we are all going to pay a steep price. This kind of irrational banter from one political party is giving aid and comfort to our enemies. When they hear and see some of the stuff coming out of some DEM's mouths they get a boost and this empowers them.

You have to admit it doesn't worry them or depress their spirits when they see the DEM party making mean and insulting statements directed at the standing President?

No one is saying not to disagree and to express your disagreement with the President, but for God's sake have some respect for yourself and for the country you live in! That man is the leader of your country. No amount of crying, whinning is going to change that FACT.

Please remember M-83 you know how much I respect you. I'm not trying to slam you here man. I just see this kind of thing as a total disrespect to yourself and to the country I assume you live in. If someone loves this country they should always try and make their arguments respectful when that argument includes the President of our country.

Oliver...Look around you. There are many people that think the president and his administration is dead wrong on many issues. By your logic, you should have left under Bill Clinton, as I'm sure you were one of his staunchest supporters. You can take Rush and Bill O'Reilly and Hannatty and their ilk too. I like many people don't see things in terms of liberal or conservative. I see things in terms of right and wrong, and what's best for the country. I have liberal views on certain subjects, and conservative views on others. To say one side is completely right or wrong is ludicrous at best. To suggest that if someone doesn't agree with the president they should leave smacks of extremism - what's next, if we don't agree take us out back and shoot us?? The Nazis tried that once, and it didn't work out too well for anybody.

The French have been our allies for over 200 years. The very fact that France, Germany, and the other major European powers except for Britain declined to enter the coalition should tell you something about the decision to go to war with Iraq. If our own allies will not support the War in Iraq, there was something wrong with that decision to begin with. If the war on terrorism is a global conflict, shouldn't we be enlisting the help of our allies, instead of antagonizing them. Bush and his cronies have set the U.S. back years with those countries who were our friends, and one day we will pay for that.

ohall
07-23-2004, 12:25 PM
1.You really need to stop telling people what to say and what not to say. Its mroe Anti-American to support censorship than it is to burn the flag. The First Admenment was written for all times, not to exclude war times. Where does it say we have a right to Freedom of Speech except in times of war.

2.Sometimes its more dangerous to support a leader than to speak out against him(see Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Pinochet, ect. ect. ect.!)

3.The only thing that is giving aid and comfort to our enemies is the fact we keep our troops in their "holy land" and keep ourselves at war(bombings and such) over there which is giving them more ammunicion to recruit more people.

4. You need to get over the fact that just because someone disagrees with you, our leader or our country that means they have to leave the country. The greatest thing about this country is you dont have to accept everything the country does or stands for, the fact that we can change America for the better(which is what liberals are for). Not everyone is a democracy-hating conservative.

You need to learn how to read posts better.

#1 I didn't tell anyone what to say or what not to say. Really, re-read my post.

#2 There you DEM's go again comparing Bush #43 to madmen! This is where your political party is and why they are unraveling like never before. I hope one day this insanity will stop and your political party can regain its once proud place.

#3 No the anger, the venom coming from your political party is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, because at this moment in time they are saying more insane things than the enemy is.

#4 I didn't say anyone needs to leave this counrty. Really, try re-reading my post.

Oliver...

ohall
07-23-2004, 12:30 PM
Look around you. There are many people that think the president and his administration is dead wrong on many issues. By your logic, you should have left under Bill Clinton, as I'm sure you were one of his staunchest supporters. You can take Rush and Bill O'Reilly and Hannatty and their ilk too. I like many people don't see things in terms of liberal or conservative. I see things in terms of right and wrong, and what's best for the country. I have liberal views on certain subjects, and conservative views on others. To say one side is completely right or wrong is ludicrous at best. To suggest that if someone doesn't agree with the president they should leave smacks of extremism - what's next, if we don't agree take us out back and shoot us?? The Nazis tried that once, and it didn't work out too well for anybody.

The French have been our allies for over 200 years. The very fact that France, Germany, and the other major European powers except for Britain declined to enter the coalition should tell you something about the decision to go to war with Iraq. If our own allies will not support the War in Iraq, there was something wrong with that decision to begin with. If the war on terrorism is a global conflict, shouldn't we be enlisting the help of our allies, instead of antagonizing them. Bush and his cronies have set the U.S. back years with those countries who were our friends, and one day we will pay for that.

You have to be kidding right? The reason France, Germany and Russia did not go to war with Iraq was because they were raping that country for every penny they could. They'd rather see innocent Iraqi women and children die and starve than help them be free from a madman named Saddam. The UN's oil for food scandall kind of makes this very clear. Please tell me you know what I'm talking about here, please!

Enlist the aid of our allies? When was the last time our allies shared equally in the burden of a war the US was invloved in? Like I said some of you need to bone up real hard on your history. Some of you are lacking here in a HUGE way. America since WW2 takes on a 80-85% burden when there is a UN war to be waged. If France, Germany and Russia had gone in with us we'd still have the most troops and we'd still have to pay the LIONS share for this war. In short my friend, nothing would have changed.

Oliver...

BigFinFan
07-23-2004, 01:00 PM
Hey M-83 military ppl do slant to the REP side, mainly because REP's take care of the military much better than when DEM's are in office. REP's believe in a smaller government and a larger military. DEM's believe in a larger government and a smaller military.

I don't think you'll find many ppl who would argue with 1227's statement about where the military votes as a voting block.

Oliver...


Without a doubt, Service Members DO vote Republican. I have been in the Navy for 16 Years and I have NEVER voted for a Democrat. Democrats do NOTHING for the Military - all Service Members suffer while we have a Democrat President.

Although former President Clinton was a Democrat, I still supported this country the same way I did when former Presidents Reagan and Bush were running things.

As I have said before, many people are willing to claim protection under the First Amendment, but the majority of them are not willing to sacrifice for their Country.

PhinPhan1227
07-23-2004, 01:12 PM
Nice to meet you PhinPhan. Thanks for serving our country. :patriot:

And no I can still be a citizen and disagree with our leader, I am sure you didn't support Clinton so why ask me to support Bush?

Clinton was still my President. In fact, he was my Commander In Chief. My personal dislike for the MAN, had no bearing on my respect for the office of President, and my respect for the Constitution which elected him. Clinton WAS my President, just as Bush IS your PResident. Again, unless you are not an American citizen. If you are an American citizen than you have agreed to abide by the US Constitution. And the US Constitution states that Bush is the President.

DolFan31
07-23-2004, 01:53 PM
You need to learn how to read posts better.

#1 I didn't tell anyone what to say or what not to say. Really, re-read my post.
"Stop insulting your country by insulting our President during times of war." Ahem..

#2 There you DEM's go again comparing Bush #43 to madmen! This is where your political party is and why they are unraveling like never before. I hope one day this insanity will stop and your political party can regain its once proud place.
2.Sometimes its more dangerous to support a leader than to speak out against him(see Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Pinochet, ect. ect. ect.!) I wasnt comparing Bush Jr. to madmen, I was comparing that situation with other similar situations. Yes, some liberals/Democrats have compared Bush to Hitler, and I dont agree with that. Huge differences.

#3 No the anger, the venom coming from your political party is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, because at this moment in time they are saying more insane things than the enemy is.
As if your party doesnt do the same to "my" party? So then it was ok going after Bill Clinton in the 90s for "sexual misconduct" and that didnt give aid to Bin Laden and his friends when they attacked the USS Cole, right? And yes we were at war with the terrorists, technically we've been at war with them since 1979.

#4 I didn't say anyone needs to leave this counrty. Really, try re-reading my post.
"Then they can leave the freaking country" ok but you did say they can leave the country, which is an insult to anyone who's dissatisfied with the state of this country and who wants to make it better, which really should be every politician's goal.

No one is saying not to disagree and to express your disagreement with the President, but for God's sake have some respect for yourself and for the country you live in! That man is the leader of your country. No amount of crying, whinning is going to change that FACT.
Unless that President is a Democrat right?

Section126
07-23-2004, 02:25 PM
Are you gonna enlist?

I did my service to this country.......

This post is possibly the dumbest one you have ever posted on this site.....if you don't count the "Dolphins Cap Jail" post.

Section126
07-23-2004, 02:29 PM
As for Max Cleland......he did lose three limbs.....and Ann Coulter was right....he lost them like a moron...........

Good Ole' Max mistook a live grenade for a dummy grenade and was fooling about while drunk........he then almost killed himself and two others......why do you think he didn't get a Purple Heart? He probably would have been locked up for a very long time had he not lost those limbs.

MAX CLELAND WAS A SCUMBAG.

Kencoboy
07-23-2004, 03:11 PM
Clinton was still my President. In fact, he was my Commander In Chief. My personal dislike for the MAN, had no bearing on my respect for the office of President, and my respect for the Constitution which elected him. Clinton WAS my President, just as Bush IS your PResident. Again, unless you are not an American citizen. If you are an American citizen than you have agreed to abide by the US Constitution. And the US Constitution states that Bush is the President.
The U.S. Constitution states a lot of things, another one of which is that the President must abide by the laws of the land, just like you or me. In fact, it is his duty to do so. And when we have a President who has willfully chosen people for Cabinet posts that have personal monetary interests that stand to make millions of dollars in the war on Iraq; is he doing his duty??? Is he making decisions based on his duty to the Constitution of the United States?? No, he is trying to keep his base happy!! Not to say that politicians have not done this for a long long time, but this bunch doesn't seem to care that it's out in the open. And the sad part is that the politicization of this matter keeps the people from seeing the truth because if you're a Republican, they can do no wrong. Bush may be my President, but I sure as hell don't have to agree with him or the policies that he is responsible for. And that has nothing to do with respect for the office.

By the way, just because you're an American citizen does not mean you have AGREED to abide by the Constitution. The vast majority of us were born here and were automatically made U.S. citizens by default. We are bound to the Constitution by it's laws; that does not mean we have to agree with them. The magic of the foresight the founding fathers had was the fact they made the Constitution subject to change. Which by implication would mean that the laws of the land could and can sometimes be wrong - and can be changed to reflect that. Women's suffrage and the right to vote, racial equality, and abortion are some of the issues that have been changed through this mechanism. You can argue the effectiveness or necessity of such changes all you want, but the fact of the matter is that Jefferson and Washington and Adams wanted us to question our government and gave us mechanisms in the Constitution to fight against it if and when it got out of hand. And that to me is the definition of a true American - one who stands up for what is right, not what his government or party says is right. If you can't tell the difference by now, we're all just wasting our time.

DolFan31
07-23-2004, 03:21 PM
The U.S. Constitution states a lot of things, another one of which is that the President must abide by the laws of the land, just like you or me. In fact, it is his duty to do so. And when we have a President who has willfully chosen people for Cabinet posts that have personal monetary interests that stand to make millions of dollars in the war on Iraq; is he doing his duty??? Is he making decisions based on his duty to the Constitution of the United States?? No, he is trying to keep his base happy!! Not to say that politicians have not done this for a long long time, but this bunch doesn't seem to care that it's out in the open. And the sad part is that the politicization of this matter keeps the people from seeing the truth because if you're a Republican, they can do no wrong. Bush may be my President, but I sure as hell don't have to agree with him or the policies that he is responsible for. And that has nothing to do with respect for the office.

By the way, just because you're an American citizen does not mean you have AGREED to abide by the Constitution. The vast majority of us were born here and were automatically made U.S. citizens by default. We are bound to the Constitution by it's laws; that does not mean we have to agree with them. The magic of the foresight the founding fathers had was the fact they made the Constitution subject to change. Which by implication would mean that the laws of the land could and can sometimes be wrong - and can be changed to reflect that. Women's suffrage and the right to vote, racial equality, and abortion are some of the issues that have been changed through this mechanism. You can argue the effectiveness or necessity of such changes all you want, but the fact of the matter is that Jefferson and Washington and Adams wanted us to question our government and gave us mechanisms in the Constitution to fight against it if and when it got out of hand. And that to me is the definition of a true American - one who stands up for what is right, not what his government or party says is right. If you can't tell the difference by now, we're all just wasting our time.
:allhail:

AntiTrust
07-23-2004, 04:38 PM
So you are saying if I am not an American citizen I can not post here?

W is the President of the United States of America yes, but I will never say he is my President.

I never said you were not, but he is the peoples selected President, and if you live in this Country, he is your President. I supported Clinton in his day, although I didn't agree with him on some issues. I have to ask, why the hatred foe Bush?

AntiTrust
07-23-2004, 04:45 PM
The U.S. Constitution states a lot of things, another one of which is that the President must abide by the laws of the land, just like you or me. In fact, it is his duty to do so. And when we have a President who has willfully chosen people for Cabinet posts that have personal monetary interests that stand to make millions of dollars in the war on Iraq; is he doing his duty??? Is he making decisions based on his duty to the Constitution of the United States?? No, he is trying to keep his base happy!! Not to say that politicians have not done this for a long long time, but this bunch doesn't seem to care that it's out in the open. And the sad part is that the politicization of this matter keeps the people from seeing the truth because if you're a Republican, they can do no wrong. Bush may be my President, but I sure as hell don't have to agree with him or the policies that he is responsible for. And that has nothing to do with respect for the office.

By the way, just because you're an American citizen does not mean you have AGREED to abide by the Constitution. The vast majority of us were born here and were automatically made U.S. citizens by default. We are bound to the Constitution by it's laws; that does not mean we have to agree with them. The magic of the foresight the founding fathers had was the fact they made the Constitution subject to change. Which by implication would mean that the laws of the land could and can sometimes be wrong - and can be changed to reflect that. Women's suffrage and the right to vote, racial equality, and abortion are some of the issues that have been changed through this mechanism. You can argue the effectiveness or necessity of such changes all you want, but the fact of the matter is that Jefferson and Washington and Adams wanted us to question our government and gave us mechanisms in the Constitution to fight against it if and when it got out of hand. And that to me is the definition of a true American - one who stands up for what is right, not what his government or party says is right. If you can't tell the difference by now, we're all just wasting our time.

A GREAT POST! Just one thing, why is it, if someones agrees with you, that makes them a true American. Yet if they don't, they are a waste of time? Can we have our opinon that the Constitution is good now, or may need to be change in a different fashion with out being attacked or have our beliefs questioned?

AntiTrust
07-23-2004, 04:54 PM
So you are saying if I am not an American citizen I can not post here?



Personally I could careless if you never posted again, my life goes on, but I will continue to correspond with you. I am not closed minded, stubborn in my beliefs, YES, but I do have a mind and it can be changed. Just not with John Kerry.

PhinPhan1227
07-23-2004, 04:57 PM
:lolcry: YOU will NEVER convince ME that the above :laughat: statement is factual !!!!!

:shakeno: It's kinda of sad that YOU seem to have an answer for EVERY post in this forum PP ...

YOUR slanted right wing facts / figures / opinions are just hilarious !!

What kills me is that when ANYone, "me for instance" post's their opinions of YOUR party and the dislike of W you seem to take it personal ..



Marino1983

Firstly, the statement, "YOU will NEVER convince ME" demonstrates nothing but an utterly closed mind. If your mind is THAT closed, why are you here? If you've got a 100% set mind, than how can anyone carry on a conversation with you? Now, on the off chance that you might actually listen to an actual fact...

"...a survey conducted by Duke University professor Ole Holsti showing an increase in the number of senior military officers describing themselves as Republicans. The percentage has gone from 33 percent in 1976 to 67 percent in 1996. During the same time period the proportion of Democrats in the brass dropped from 12 percent to 7 percent.

On the question of "self-identified ideology," 77 percent of the military were Conservative, 14 percent Moderate, and 9 percent were Liberal."

http://www.stats.org/record.jsp?type=news&ID=305

I'm trying to find more recent figures for you, as these only reflect 1996 numbers. But unless you can present figures which state that military personell do NOT register much more predominantly Republican than Democrat, ho wdo you expect anyone to take you seriously when you make such a vacuous statement?

PhinPhan1227
07-23-2004, 05:14 PM
The U.S. Constitution states a lot of things, another one of which is that the President must abide by the laws of the land, just like you or me. In fact, it is his duty to do so. And when we have a President who has willfully chosen people for Cabinet posts that have personal monetary interests that stand to make millions of dollars in the war on Iraq; is he doing his duty??? Is he making decisions based on his duty to the Constitution of the United States?? No, he is trying to keep his base happy!! Not to say that politicians have not done this for a long long time, but this bunch doesn't seem to care that it's out in the open. And the sad part is that the politicization of this matter keeps the people from seeing the truth because if you're a Republican, they can do no wrong. Bush may be my President, but I sure as hell don't have to agree with him or the policies that he is responsible for. And that has nothing to do with respect for the office.

By the way, just because you're an American citizen does not mean you have AGREED to abide by the Constitution. The vast majority of us were born here and were automatically made U.S. citizens by default. We are bound to the Constitution by it's laws; that does not mean we have to agree with them. The magic of the foresight the founding fathers had was the fact they made the Constitution subject to change. Which by implication would mean that the laws of the land could and can sometimes be wrong - and can be changed to reflect that. Women's suffrage and the right to vote, racial equality, and abortion are some of the issues that have been changed through this mechanism. You can argue the effectiveness or necessity of such changes all you want, but the fact of the matter is that Jefferson and Washington and Adams wanted us to question our government and gave us mechanisms in the Constitution to fight against it if and when it got out of hand. And that to me is the definition of a true American - one who stands up for what is right, not what his government or party says is right. If you can't tell the difference by now, we're all just wasting our time.

By chosing to live here , you HAVE agreed to abide by the Constitution. Doesn't matter if you raise your right arm or not...you HAVE agreed to do so. Doesn't mean you agree with the laws themselves, ONLY that you agree to ABIDE by them. And that's EXACTLY what I said. I don't agree with MANY laws, and even a few parts of the Constitution. But unless I get 2/3rds of my fellow citizens to agree with me, I'm still going to abide by them. Question the government. Question the President. Criticize BOTH as much as you wish. But denying that Bush is the President is another matter. That's sedition. None of the Founding Fathers was in favor of THAT.

Kencoboy
07-23-2004, 08:57 PM
By chosing to live here , you HAVE agreed to abide by the Constitution. Doesn't matter if you raise your right arm or not...you HAVE agreed to do so. Doesn't mean you agree with the laws themselves, ONLY that you agree to ABIDE by them. And that's EXACTLY what I said. I don't agree with MANY laws, and even a few parts of the Constitution. But unless I get 2/3rds of my fellow citizens to agree with me, I'm still going to abide by them. Question the government. Question the President. Criticize BOTH as much as you wish. But denying that Bush is the President is another matter. That's sedition. None of the Founding Fathers was in favor of THAT.
Who said anything about denying Bush is the President??

I literally understand what you said, but in reality it falls apart. If what you say is true, then every U.S. citizen abides by the laws set forth in our constitution and the laws that have branched from that. No crime in the streets, no Enron debacles, no drug czars. Please don't tell me everyone abides by the laws of the land. If they break the laws, they certainly don't abide by them, and they don't agree with them either.

One needs to look no further than the Bush administration whose policies centered around 9/11 have made a total joke of what our Constitution stands for. Take away our liberties with the Patriot Act so that we can be more free. Attack Iraq with a police action under false pretenses so that we can be safer. This crap doesn't fly in the Constitution I read.

PhinPhan1227
07-23-2004, 11:16 PM
Who said anything about denying Bush is the President??

I literally understand what you said, but in reality it falls apart. If what you say is true, then every U.S. citizen abides by the laws set forth in our constitution and the laws that have branched from that. No crime in the streets, no Enron debacles, no drug czars. Please don't tell me everyone abides by the laws of the land. If they break the laws, they certainly don't abide by them, and they don't agree with them either.

One needs to look no further than the Bush administration whose policies centered around 9/11 have made a total joke of what our Constitution stands for. Take away our liberties with the Patriot Act so that we can be more free. Attack Iraq with a police action under false pretenses so that we can be safer. This crap doesn't fly in the Constitution I read.

You responded to my post which was a response to another post which stated, "I am talking about the Chicken Hawk right wing Republicans, ones like your President.". Denial of Bush as "your" President is a violation of the Constitution. As such, it is a violation of the law. Guess what..people violate laws all the time...and guess what else...there are consequences to that violation if you are caught and prosecuted. Again...by living in America, you agree to abide by it's laws. If you VIOLATE that agreement, there are CONSEQUENCES. If you doubt that, I can direct you to any number of federal prisons around the country. If the Fed's wanted to make an issue of it, they COULD actually go against someone for denial of Bush as the President. It's tantamount to conspiracy to commit treason because you are declaring your intent to follow someone else as President. Of course, the government would never do that because they don't take a comment like that seriously without action to back it up...but they would be within their rights to do so. Once again...and I'll say this slowly...I NEVER said ANYTHING about AGREEING with the laws. N.E.V.E.R. Agreeing with the laws, and agreeing to ABIDE by the laws are ENTIRELY different things. NOTHING says that YOU have to agree with ANY law. All that is required is that the MAJORITY(either simple, or some higher percentage) agree with the law. What YOU have agreed to is to abide by the opinion of the majority. Disagree with the law...dislike the law...hate the law...but ABIDE by the law. If you don't you face the consquences. I'm not sure if I can explain this any more simply.

Kencoboy
07-24-2004, 03:51 AM
You responded to my post which was a response to another post which stated, "I am talking about the Chicken Hawk right wing Republicans, ones like your President.". Denial of Bush as "your" President is a violation of the Constitution. As such, it is a violation of the law. Guess what..people violate laws all the time...and guess what else...there are consequences to that violation if you are caught and prosecuted. Again...by living in America, you agree to abide by it's laws. If you VIOLATE that agreement, there are CONSEQUENCES. If you doubt that, I can direct you to any number of federal prisons around the country. If the Fed's wanted to make an issue of it, they COULD actually go against someone for denial of Bush as the President. It's tantamount to conspiracy to commit treason because you are declaring your intent to follow someone else as President. Of course, the government would never do that because they don't take a comment like that seriously without action to back it up...but they would be within their rights to do so. Once again...and I'll say this slowly...I NEVER said ANYTHING about AGREEING with the laws. N.E.V.E.R. Agreeing with the laws, and agreeing to ABIDE by the laws are ENTIRELY different things. NOTHING says that YOU have to agree with ANY law. All that is required is that the MAJORITY(either simple, or some higher percentage) agree with the law. What YOU have agreed to is to abide by the opinion of the majority. Disagree with the law...dislike the law...hate the law...but ABIDE by the law. If you don't you face the consquences. I'm not sure if I can explain this any more simply.
Calm down. You said that every US citizen agrees to abide (comply) by the laws set forth in the Constitution. That is an understanding fundamental to our laws, and I'll agree with that. All I said was the understanding fails when reality sets in - people don't comply with laws they don't agree with. The ideal falls apart when humans enter the mix. And the Constitution itself is flexible to allow changes so that those laws people don't agree with can be changed - that's the magic.

muscle979
07-24-2004, 10:30 AM
Ann Coulter is a lying nutcase. Don't believe what she writes. She lies in many ways to make her arguments.

PhinPhan1227
07-24-2004, 10:47 AM
Calm down. You said that every US citizen agrees to abide (comply) by the laws set forth in the Constitution. That is an understanding fundamental to our laws, and I'll agree with that. All I said was the understanding fails when reality sets in - people don't comply with laws they don't agree with. The ideal falls apart when humans enter the mix. And the Constitution itself is flexible to allow changes so that those laws people don't agree with can be changed - that's the magic.

Sigh...by living in this country...you AGREE to abide by it's laws. By getting a drivers licence, you AGREE to abide by the laws of the road. Does that mean you never speed? Of course it doesn't, but you DID make that agreement. If you hadn't they wouldn't have given you a licence. When you VIOLATE that agreement, you get a ticket. You want to talk reality? Does every person do what they say they will do? Does every person stick to their word? People violate that agreement. That's why we have cops. But it is the agreement which allows the law to be enforced. The basis of law is the agreement to abide by those laws. The basis of society is the agreement to abide by the law. You AGREE to abide by the laws when you enjoy the benefits of society. If you don't want to agree to abide with the driving laws, don't get a license. Don't want to agree to abide by Federal law? Live somewhere else. There have actually been Seperatists who used the defense that since they took advantage of none of societies benefits, they were not subject to societies laws. In a couple if instances that defense actually worked(limited circumstances). What you apparently fail to recognize is that the fact that people break the law doesn't nullify the agreement, it validates it. Because when they are punished for breaking those laws, they are punished UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THAT AGREEMENT. Without the agreement there is no justification for punishment. Understand?

Kencoboy
07-24-2004, 05:49 PM
Sigh...by living in this country...you AGREE to abide by it's laws. By getting a drivers licence, you AGREE to abide by the laws of the road. Does that mean you never speed? Of course it doesn't, but you DID make that agreement. If you hadn't they wouldn't have given you a licence. When you VIOLATE that agreement, you get a ticket. You want to talk reality? Does every person do what they say they will do? Does every person stick to their word? People violate that agreement. That's why we have cops. But it is the agreement which allows the law to be enforced. The basis of law is the agreement to abide by those laws. The basis of society is the agreement to abide by the law. You AGREE to abide by the laws when you enjoy the benefits of society. If you don't want to agree to abide with the driving laws, don't get a license. Don't want to agree to abide by Federal law? Live somewhere else. There have actually been Seperatists who used the defense that since they took advantage of none of societies benefits, they were not subject to societies laws. In a couple if instances that defense actually worked(limited circumstances). What you apparently fail to recognize is that the fact that people break the law doesn't nullify the agreement, it validates it. Because when they are punished for breaking those laws, they are punished UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THAT AGREEMENT. Without the agreement there is no justification for punishment. Understand?
Sure I understand. But you fail to mention the fact that people make the laws and the laws can be changed. All the laws cannot be agreed with or abided by by what you just said. I understand your point, please try to understand mine. The laws are the ideal - if people make the laws they are tainted by human folly. By definition a criminal is someone who commits a crime. A crime is defined by society. Society is not always right. Women were given the right to vote early in this century. Your arguement is that if they live here they are subject to what society deems is law until it is changed. My arguement is that does not make it right. If Clinton would have taken away all our guns, would you feel the same??

Section126
07-24-2004, 06:45 PM
Ann Coulter is a lying nutcase. Don't believe what she writes. She lies in many ways to make her arguments.

Ann Coulter backs up everything she says with facts...it's just the way she says things that has you confused.......

She is a conservative Bomb thrower......just like Paul Begala is a liberal Bomb thrower.......

Section126
07-24-2004, 06:46 PM
Interesting that NOBODY has come to the defense of that Moron Max Cleland.......I guess the truth of how he lost his three limbs hurts your case huh? :lol:

PhinPhan1227
07-25-2004, 03:12 AM
Sure I understand. But you fail to mention the fact that people make the laws and the laws can be changed. All the laws cannot be agreed with or abided by by what you just said. I understand your point, please try to understand mine. The laws are the ideal - if people make the laws they are tainted by human folly. By definition a criminal is someone who commits a crime. A crime is defined by society. Society is not always right. Women were given the right to vote early in this century. Your arguement is that if they live here they are subject to what society deems is law until it is changed. My arguement is that does not make it right. If Clinton would have taken away all our guns, would you feel the same??

This is a Representative Republic. A form of Democracy. In the broadest sense, we live under majority rule. We agree to abide by the will of the majority. In most cases a simple majority, but where our basic rights are concerned, a 2/3rds majority. You agree to abide by the laws because the laws have been established by the majority. In point of fact, YES, if the majority decides something, that DOES make it right. At least insofar as our society is concerned. You are entirely correct in this statement.

"Your arguement is that if they live here they are subject to what society deems is law until it is changed. My arguement is that does not make it right."

The problem is, absolute right and wrong is not really the issue, nor is it a factor in this argument. If 2/3rds of America decided tomorrow to reinstitute slavery, slavery WOULD be reinstituted in this country. What you fail to understand is that a Democracy is the ULTIMATE expression of "might makes right". In a Dictatorship, or Monarchy, or almost any other "absolutist" form of government, the power of the leader is only borrowed from the people. True might "allows" right to be determined for it, because regardless of who holds the reigns, the power still resides in the people. In a Democracy however, the people ARE holding the reigns. The group that has the power also determines the course. What all of that boils down to is that if you choose to reside in America, you do so at the permission of the majority. If they decide that something is right or wrong, it IS right or wrong...until they change their mind. Once again, you don't have to agree with the majority. You can even speak out against the majority. But fail to agree to abide by the will of the majority and they will throw your *** in jail or kill you. So tell me again how you can live a free life in America without agreeing to abide by the Constitution.

Kencoboy
07-25-2004, 04:13 AM
This is a Representative Republic. A form of Democracy. In the broadest sense, we live under majority rule. We agree to abide by the will of the majority. In most cases a simple majority, but where our basic rights are concerned, a 2/3rds majority. You agree to abide by the laws because the laws have been established by the majority. In point of fact, YES, if the majority decides something, that DOES make it right. At least insofar as our society is concerned. You are entirely correct in this statement.

"Your arguement is that if they live here they are subject to what society deems is law until it is changed. My arguement is that does not make it right."

The problem is, absolute right and wrong is not really the issue, nor is it a factor in this argument. If 2/3rds of America decided tomorrow to reinstitute slavery, slavery WOULD be reinstituted in this country. What you fail to understand is that a Democracy is the ULTIMATE expression of "might makes right". In a Dictatorship, or Monarchy, or almost any other "absolutist" form of government, the power of the leader is only borrowed from the people. True might "allows" right to be determined for it, because regardless of who holds the reigns, the power still resides in the people. In a Democracy however, the people ARE holding the reigns. The group that has the power also determines the course. What all of that boils down to is that if you choose to reside in America, you do so at the permission of the majority. If they decide that something is right or wrong, it IS right or wrong...until they change their mind. Once again, you don't have to agree with the majority. You can even speak out against the majority. But fail to agree to abide by the will of the majority and they will throw your *** in jail or kill you. So tell me again how you can live a free life in America without agreeing to abide by the Constitution.
Because all laws are not enforced the same because of human interaction. You're talking theory and I'm talking reality. I give up.

PhinPhan1227
07-25-2004, 04:59 AM
Because all laws are not enforced the same because of human interaction. You're talking theory and I'm talking reality. I give up.


Enforcement isn't the issue. Once again, if the majority, or their agents decide not to punish you for something in Oregon that the majority in Texas decides to throw you in jail for...you are STILL at the mercyof the majority. You have still agreed to abide by THEIR laws, because the choice is THIERS over the punishment. Look, the proof of the argument is this...pick a law you choose not to abide by. Now demonstrate that choice by breaking that law. Even the silly and stupid ones...if flaunted enough will bring retribution. Look, what you are failing to understand is the difference between the agreements that hold society together, and the violation of those agreements by individuals. So long as those violations ARE by individuals, the agreement still stands. The alternative is the disolution of the Republic. It's like the monetary system. We all agree that a $20 bill is worth something. The "reality" is that all that $20 is worth is the value of the ink and paper used to make it. It has virtually ZERO intrinsic value. But we all agree to abide by it's relative value as a means of exchange. If you sell your car you have given away tangible, valuable property for some paper and ink. But because of the universla agreement, you are recieving something which has been ASSIGNED value. Care to try to take yourself out of that agreement? It's simple...stop accepting or using paper money. But then you have to face those consequences. Same thing with law and the Constitution. You agree to abide by it when you live here and fall under the protection and threat of those laws. Want to see someone who has not? Take a look at a diplomat. THAT person has NOT agreed to abide by our laws. THAT person lives in a bubble, isolated from our laws. They are able to do so because of the power they represent. As an individual you have no such power. You have exactly three choices...agree to abide by our laws and remain, don't agree to abide and stay, or leave. It's THAT simple. But if you choose option #2, you are going to face punishment. Either way, and regardless of which choice you make, you are still aceeding(sp) to the will of the majority. Again, this isn't theory versus fact. Pick ANY sentence from this post and I will give you a real world example. Give me ONE example of someone who has NOT agreed to abide by our laws and still remains a free citizen of this country.

Kencoboy
07-25-2004, 06:53 PM
Enforcement isn't the issue. Once again, if the majority, or their agents decide not to punish you for something in Oregon that the majority in Texas decides to throw you in jail for...you are STILL at the mercyof the majority. You have still agreed to abide by THEIR laws, because the choice is THIERS over the punishment. Look, the proof of the argument is this...pick a law you choose not to abide by. Now demonstrate that choice by breaking that law. Even the silly and stupid ones...if flaunted enough will bring retribution. Look, what you are failing to understand is the difference between the agreements that hold society together, and the violation of those agreements by individuals. So long as those violations ARE by individuals, the agreement still stands. The alternative is the disolution of the Republic. It's like the monetary system. We all agree that a $20 bill is worth something. The "reality" is that all that $20 is worth is the value of the ink and paper used to make it. It has virtually ZERO intrinsic value. But we all agree to abide by it's relative value as a means of exchange. If you sell your car you have given away tangible, valuable property for some paper and ink. But because of the universla agreement, you are recieving something which has been ASSIGNED value. Care to try to take yourself out of that agreement? It's simple...stop accepting or using paper money. But then you have to face those consequences. Same thing with law and the Constitution. You agree to abide by it when you live here and fall under the protection and threat of those laws. Want to see someone who has not? Take a look at a diplomat. THAT person has NOT agreed to abide by our laws. THAT person lives in a bubble, isolated from our laws. They are able to do so because of the power they represent. As an individual you have no such power. You have exactly three choices...agree to abide by our laws and remain, don't agree to abide and stay, or leave. It's THAT simple. But if you choose option #2, you are going to face punishment. Either way, and regardless of which choice you make, you are still aceeding(sp) to the will of the majority. Again, this isn't theory versus fact. Pick ANY sentence from this post and I will give you a real world example. Give me ONE example of someone who has NOT agreed to abide by our laws and still remains a free citizen of this country.
The smartass reply you're going to get is George W. Bush, but I can't prove any of that. The agreement you talk about goes both ways. I UNDERSTAND that I agree to abide by the laws of the country by living here - that to me is a technicality. Do you put the toilet seat down for your wife after you take a whiz?? If so, you are agreeing to abide by her laws, or there will be repercussions. I UNDERSTAND. Did George W. Bush win the popular vote?? No. How did a minority of the people elect this president?? Please don't tell me that everyone who breaks a law is punished?? Would you agree that O.J. Simpson is a lying SOB who got off because a race button was pressed?? It looks like he lives pretty free to me. I know you're going to say he was acquitted by a jury of his peers so that is not a valid example, but I really don't care.

The Constitution sets up the laws of the land and also has provisions to protect the individual's rights too. WHEN SOMEONE IS DEPRIVED OF THEIR RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, THAT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. And when your silly majority decides to make slavery a law, good luck getting past that one. Just like the right to bear arms and freedom of the press, etc. Your interpretation of the agreement to abide by the laws of the land smacks of fascism at best because a majority cannot trample the individual rights of a citizen. Right now we could get a majority of Dolphin fans to agree to lynch Ricky Williams. Is that right. NO. And you are saying that in a democracy the majority is always right??? BS. And the Constitution is set up so that a majority can make the laws as long as they hold up to the rules contained in the Constitution itself. PERIOD. I agree to abide by the laws set forth in the Constitution AND the Constitution protects me from illegal, immoral, and unethical laws and gives measures to me like impeachment of the President so that if things get out of hand we can get rid of the scum causing the problems. That's the agreement you keep talking about - and it's not your one-sided get the hell out if you don't like it conservative invective.

Fin_Fanatic
07-25-2004, 07:18 PM
No country should be kicked out of the UN. Anyway, the US is definitely part of the reason why France has the status it has in the UN.

Also, France helped us during the war on terror. They weren't against us when we went into Afghanistan. I find it funny that people keep on bashing France and France alone when most countries in the world were against the war. Why aren't we bashing Germany? Russia? Why is 99% of bashing for not supporting the war on Iraq directed at France? I don't agree with their position, but the hatred for that nation in this country is embarassing and stupid. France has been on our side almost all of the time since this country came into existance. They might not be good at war and we may have bailed them out a few times, but France has always been a friend to the US. There are a lot of nations in the world that are a lot worse than France.

how many french troops were in afghanistan?? if any there couldnt have been that many. the french have decided to try and slow down the US no matter what, thats why they are named more than germany and russia. france has helped us ONCE, the revolutionary war. they have been an ally in the past, definitely nowhere near a

Karl_12
07-25-2004, 08:48 PM
Interesting that NOBODY has come to the defense of that Moron Max Cleland.......I guess the truth of how he lost his three limbs hurts your case huh? :lol:No it doesn’t because at least he had the balls to go over to Iraq. To have some right wing b*tch making fun of a handicapped person (even though it was caused by his own intoxication) is just despicable.

PhinPhan1227
07-25-2004, 09:09 PM
The smartass reply you're going to get is George W. Bush, but I can't prove any of that. The agreement you talk about goes both ways. I UNDERSTAND that I agree to abide by the laws of the country by living here - that to me is a technicality. Do you put the toilet seat down for your wife after you take a whiz?? If so, you are agreeing to abide by her laws, or there will be repercussions. I UNDERSTAND. Did George W. Bush win the popular vote?? No. How did a minority of the people elect this president?? Please don't tell me that everyone who breaks a law is punished?? Would you agree that O.J. Simpson is a lying SOB who got off because a race button was pressed?? It looks like he lives pretty free to me. I know you're going to say he was acquitted by a jury of his peers so that is not a valid example, but I really don't care.

The Constitution sets up the laws of the land and also has provisions to protect the individual's rights too. WHEN SOMEONE IS DEPRIVED OF THEIR RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, THAT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. And when your silly majority decides to make slavery a law, good luck getting past that one. Just like the right to bear arms and freedom of the press, etc. Your interpretation of the agreement to abide by the laws of the land smacks of fascism at best because a majority cannot trample the individual rights of a citizen. Right now we could get a majority of Dolphin fans to agree to lynch Ricky Williams. Is that right. NO. And you are saying that in a democracy the majority is always right??? BS. And the Constitution is set up so that a majority can make the laws as long as they hold up to the rules contained in the Constitution itself. PERIOD. I agree to abide by the laws set forth in the Constitution AND the Constitution protects me from illegal, immoral, and unethical laws and gives measures to me like impeachment of the President so that if things get out of hand we can get rid of the scum causing the problems. That's the agreement you keep talking about - and it's not your one-sided get the hell out if you don't like it conservative invective.


Not only have you obviously never read the Constitution, you've also got no clue as to it's history or how it works. The Bill of Rights? It's composed of Ammendments. That means CHANGES to the original Constitution. And the exact same method that was used to ADD those rights...can be used to take them away. I can tell you the EXACT method by which slavery could be reimposed on America.

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. "

Go through those steps, and you can add an Ammendment to repeal to elimination of slavery. It's that simple. All you need is a 2/3rds majority vote. That doesn't even mean you need 2/3rds of the country to agree...only the 2/3rds that is willing to show up at the polls. You obviously labor under the illusion that your rights are inalienable. That was a wonderful sentiment for the Declaration of Independance, but it doesn't exist under law. Oh, and by the way...Life/Liberty/pursuit of Happiness are ALSO from the Declaration. Again, a nice sentiment, but in NO way a binding document. In point of fact, the government deprives people of life, liberty, and their pursuit of happiness EVERY day. Dude, read the freaking Constitution...every American should.

Kencoboy
07-26-2004, 12:47 AM
Not only have you obviously never read the Constitution, you've also got no clue as to it's history or how it works. The Bill of Rights? It's composed of Ammendments. That means CHANGES to the original Constitution. And the exact same method that was used to ADD those rights...can be used to take them away. I can tell you the EXACT method by which slavery could be reimposed on America.

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. "

Go through those steps, and you can add an Ammendment to repeal to elimination of slavery. It's that simple. All you need is a 2/3rds majority vote. That doesn't even mean you need 2/3rds of the country to agree...only the 2/3rds that is willing to show up at the polls. You obviously labor under the illusion that your rights are inalienable. That was a wonderful sentiment for the Declaration of Independance, but it doesn't exist under law. Oh, and by the way...Life/Liberty/pursuit of Happiness are ALSO from the Declaration. Again, a nice sentiment, but in NO way a binding document. In point of fact, the government deprives people of life, liberty, and their pursuit of happiness EVERY day. Dude, read the freaking Constitution...every American should.
And my point is go ahead and start a movement to get slavery started again and see how far it goes. Your THEORY is correct, now try to apply it to the real world and see what happens. Yes, any law can be changed - I made that point earlier. And your 2/3 majority speech is fine too. NOW USE THAT TO START REPEALING THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND SEE HOW FAR YOU GET. Yes people are deprived of their constitutional rights every day, no s__t. I have read the Constitution, though not recently, and I'll admit that freely. I can cut and paste too. And when laws are passed that don't coincide with the laws set forth in the Constitution, the Supreme Court after Marbury v. Madison can strike down those laws it finds unconstitutional. Another check to the reality you ascribe to.

By the way, the Bill of Rights were a series of amendments to the Constitution by the MINORITY who would not sign the document unless they were added. You will note that all these amendments concerned individual rights. And I'll agree its a fact they can be changed by a simple 2/3 majority. NOW DO IT, and GOOD LUCK. I UNDERSTAND IT CAN BE DONE: NOW DO IT!!! That has been my point all along.

Now, what about O.J.??

PhinPhan1227
07-26-2004, 01:54 AM
And my point is go ahead and start a movement to get slavery started again and see how far it goes. Your THEORY is correct, now try to apply it to the real world and see what happens. Yes, any law can be changed - I made that point earlier. And your 2/3 majority speech is fine too. NOW USE THAT TO START REPEALING THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND SEE HOW FAR YOU GET. Yes people are deprived of their constitutional rights every day, no s__t. I have read the Constitution, though not recently, and I'll admit that freely. I can cut and paste too. And when laws are passed that don't coincide with the laws set forth in the Constitution, the Supreme Court after Marbury v. Madison can strike down those laws it finds unconstitutional. Another check to the reality you ascribe to.

By the way, the Bill of Rights were a series of amendments to the Constitution by the MINORITY who would not sign the document unless they were added. You will note that all these amendments concerned individual rights. And I'll agree its a fact they can be changed by a simple 2/3 majority. NOW DO IT, and GOOD LUCK. I UNDERSTAND IT CAN BE DONE: NOW DO IT!!! That has been my point all along.

Now, what about O.J.??


Think it can't be done? There's a strong movement to make it a Constitutional fact that a significant number of American citizens cannot marry the person they are in love with. That would be a blatant statement that those people are 2nd class citizens. Today you won't see slavery return to the Constitution...but you're naive if you think it couldn't. People are so damned spoiled right now they actually have the balls to refer to Iraq as another Vietnam and the recent downturn as another Depression. Just try to imagine what those same people might do if we DID have another Vietnam or another Depression. Throw enough fear and suffering into the mix and any group of people can and will act just like the citizens of Germany circa 1935. Also, PLEASE realize that life/liberty/happiness are NOT absolute Constitutional rights. Happiness isn't in the Constitution ANYWHERE, and life and liberty are CERTAINLY allowed to be taken away from ANY citizen...so long as due process is followed. The government isn't violating ANY Constitutional rights when it jails or even executes one of it's citizens. Lastly, as for OJ, nothing's perfect. But bear in mind that he did lose the civil case, so some punishment WAS meted out.

Kencoboy
07-26-2004, 03:33 AM
Sorry I'm so damn hardheaded, but sometimes I enjoy a good argument. I agree with what you're saying but with my own little twist. In a lot of ways the basic tenets that our country is founded on are held together with the smallest threads, and most people don't realize that. The basic ideals can and have been eroded away for good reasons or bad. We are dangerously close to having a minority win rule when so few people vote.

For an even better example than O.J. check out the case of Vincent Chin in 1982. I couldn't remember the name earlier, but his is an extreme example case in which our government actually tried to do the right thing. :)

PhinPhan1227
07-26-2004, 03:44 AM
Sorry I'm so damn hardheaded, but sometimes I enjoy a good argument. I agree with what you're saying but with my own little twist. In a lot of ways the basic tenets that our country is founded on are held together with the smallest threads, and most people don't realize that. The basic ideals can and have been eroded away for good reasons or bad. We are dangerously close to having a minority win rule when so few people vote.

For an even better example than O.J. check out the case of Vincent Chin in 1982. I couldn't remember the name earlier, but his is an extreme example case in which our government actually tried to do the right thing. :)

I fully agree with that sentiment. It shocks me when I hear people express the idea that America could never devolve into an autocratic state as bad as any the world has ever seen. I can certainly understand the "slippery slope" people who battle tooth and nail over EVERY civil right no matter HOW tiny. But the flip side of that is the fact that we HAVE to live together. You can't observe EVERY persons civil right becuase many of them conflict with each other. Your right to own a gun conflicts with my right to be protected from that gun. Your right to drink conflicts with my right to be protected from drunk drivers. This country thrives because for the most part rational thought prevails. But rational thought is pretty easy when things are going well...it tends to go out the window when the poop hits the fan. Glad we could find a common ground. As for Chin, he was just a precursor of the kids who got off after beating that truck driver to death during the LA/Rodney King riots. The law doesn't exist in a vaccuum. It's subject to all the flaws of humanity. Couple that with the fact that we slant the law in favor of the accused and you get things like this. But until we start allowing people to openly flaunt the law, that "agreement to abide" still stands. Cheers man.

DolFan31
07-26-2004, 11:17 AM
No it doesn’t because at least he had the balls to go over to Iraq. To have some right wing b*tch making fun of a handicapped person (even though it was caused by his own intoxication) is just despicable.

You mean Vietnam right?

Section126
07-26-2004, 03:15 PM
No it doesn’t because at least he had the balls to go over to Iraq. To have some right wing b*tch making fun of a handicapped person (even though it was caused by his own intoxication) is just despicable.


A guy that almost kills two others and himself because he was drunk hardly deserves any respect.....

I am telling you that he could have been locked up forever had he hurt others and not himself......

He was not thrown in jail because he got punishment enough.....

I do appreciate his service though...until he decided to play hot potatoe with a live grenade.

DolFan31
07-26-2004, 03:56 PM
A guy that almost kills two others and himself because he was drunk hardly deserves any respect.....


How about that one guy who lives at 1600 Pennslyvania Ave who had been arrested for DUI and couldve killed somebody?
http://www.salon.com/politics/trail/2000/11/03/trail_mix/
http://www.rnw.nl/hotspots/html/usa001103.html
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/02/bush.dui/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/US_election_race/Story/0,2763,392221,00.html

Ya know 126, you would attack Kerry if he had this on his record.

Karl_12
07-26-2004, 04:21 PM
You mean Vietnam right?
Oops. My bad. I did mean to say Vietnam.

DolFan31
07-26-2004, 04:24 PM
Oops. My bad. I did mean to say Vietnam.

Gotcha :up:

DolFan31
07-27-2004, 10:08 PM
How about that one guy who lives at 1600 Pennslyvania Ave who had been arrested for DUI and couldve killed somebody?
http://www.salon.com/politics/trail/2000/11/03/trail_mix/
http://www.rnw.nl/hotspots/html/usa001103.html
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/02/bush.dui/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/US_election_race/Story/0,2763,392221,00.html

Ya know 126, you would attack Kerry if he had this on his record.

Interesting that 126 hasnt defended Bush on this..

Section126
07-27-2004, 11:35 PM
Interesting that 126 hasnt defended Bush on this..


That was almost 40 years ago.......John Kerry sucks now.......

DolFan31
07-27-2004, 11:40 PM
That was almost 40 years ago.......John Kerry sucks now.......

Try 30 years and Im talking about the DUI. You said

A guy that almost kills two others and himself because he was drunk hardly deserves any respect.....
THAT incident occured almost 40 years ago. But anyway, thats what you said. Now how about Bush who drove drunk and got arrested for it and admitted it?

Bush admitting DUI:
http://www.salon.com/politics/trail...1/03/trail_mix/
http://www.rnw.nl/hotspots/html/usa001103.html
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS...11/02/bush.dui/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/US_electi...,392221,00.html

But you respect this guy. Double standard?

DolFan31
07-27-2004, 11:41 PM
BTW: Kerry has nothing to do with this.

Section126
07-27-2004, 11:43 PM
You are comparing Bush driving impaired for two blocks (POLICE REPORT) with Cleland twirling around a live grenade while drunk?

Get Outta here!

PhinPhan1227
07-27-2004, 11:44 PM
Try 30 years and Im talking about the DUI. You said

THAT incident occured almost 40 years ago. But anyway, thats what you said. Now how about Bush who drove drunk and got arrested for it and admitted it?

Bush admitting DUI:
http://www.salon.com/politics/trail...1/03/trail_mix/
http://www.rnw.nl/hotspots/html/usa001103.html
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS...11/02/bush.dui/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/US_electi...,392221,00.html

But you respect this guy. Double standard?


If Bush had injured himself while drunk driving I wouldn't extend him any sympathy. But lets be real...juggling hand grenades is a few steps above a DUI. And most importantly, people are trying to portray his injury as having occured in the line of duty, versus the line of stupidity.

DolFan31
07-27-2004, 11:54 PM
You are comparing Bush driving impaired for two blocks (POLICE REPORT) with Cleland twirling around a live grenade while drunk?

Get Outta here!

If Bush had injured himself while drunk driving I wouldn't extend him any sympathy. But lets be real...juggling hand grenades is a few steps above a DUI. And most importantly, people are trying to portray his injury as having occured in the line of duty, versus the line of stupidity.

The point im making is that BOTH were drunk and BOTH could have KILLED someone. 126 you said you wouldnt give anyone respect for being drunk and reckless(im paraphrasing), what about your President? Stop making excuses!

PhinPhan1227
07-27-2004, 11:56 PM
The point im making is that BOTH were drunk and BOTH could have KILLED someone. 126 you said you wouldnt give anyone respect for being drunk and reckless(im paraphrasing), what about your President? Stop making excuses!

That's true. But in perspective, it happened decades ago. And I have to give him credit for overcoming an addiction. Clinton obviously has a sex addiction he hasn't overcome.

DolFan31
07-28-2004, 12:00 AM
That's true. But in perspective, it happened decades ago. And I have to give him credit for overcoming an addiction. Clinton obviously has a sex addiction he hasn't overcome.
Both incidents happened decades ago.

Clinton's personal life is not any of your business, nor is it any of mine, or any one else thats not related to him.

PhinPhan1227
07-28-2004, 12:05 AM
Both incidents happened decades ago.

Clinton's personal life is not any of your business, nor is it any of mine, or any one else thats not related to him.


As it relates to a criminal sexual harrasment case, yes it does concern me. And more importantly, when Clinton brought it into the Oval Office, it became the concern of every American. That's OUR office, not his.

DolFan31
07-28-2004, 12:08 AM
As it relates to a criminal sexual harrasment case, yes it does concern me. And more importantly, when Clinton brought it into the Oval Office, it became the concern of every American. That's OUR office, not his.

Ill agree he shouldnt have done it in the Oval Office and that he shouldnt have lied, BUT its still NONE of anyone's business(besides the party's involved). These were allegations that were never PROVED to be true. In fact, has Bill Clinton ever been PROVEN guilty of anything besides Monica? Last I heard, its innocent until proven guilty in this country.

PhinPhan1227
07-28-2004, 12:20 AM
Ill agree he shouldnt have done it in the Oval Office and that he shouldnt have lied, BUT its still NONE of anyone's business(besides the party's involved). These were allegations that were never PROVED to be true. In fact, has Bill Clinton ever been PROVEN guilty of anything besides Monica? Last I heard, its innocent until proven guilty in this country.

Jesus Christ man...do you want to see the tape of him stating UNDER OATH that he didn't have sex with her? Do you then want to watch the tape of him stating that yes...he DID have sex with her? He perjured himself on NATIONLA telivision, how much more proof do you want? Innocent until proven doesn't apply if YOU ARE AN AYE WITNESS!!! And once again, the President commiting a crime IS our business. The investigation of whether the President committed sexual harrasment IS our business.

iceblizzard69
07-28-2004, 12:37 AM
If Bush had injured himself while drunk driving I wouldn't extend him any sympathy. But lets be real...juggling hand grenades is a few steps above a DUI. And most importantly, people are trying to portray his injury as having occured in the line of duty, versus the line of stupidity.

Yes, juggling hand grenades is more dangerous, but someone driving around drunk is extremely dangerous and has led to the deaths of many people, both behind the wheel and not. Driving drunk shows no regard for both your own life and other people's lives as well.

DolFan31
07-28-2004, 12:41 AM
Jesus Christ man...do you want to see the tape of him stating UNDER OATH that he didn't have sex with her? Do you then want to watch the tape of him stating that yes...he DID have sex with her? He perjured himself on NATIONLA telivision, how much more proof do you want? Innocent until proven doesn't apply if YOU ARE AN AYE WITNESS!!! And once again, the President commiting a crime IS our business. The investigation of whether the President committed sexual harrasment IS our business.

Oh..my..god..

How many times do I need to type "BESIDES MONICA!" Im sick of this Monica crap. I KNOW HE LIED ABOUT MONICA! Can you come up with any other "lie" of his thats been PROVEN to be a LIE or are going to continue to talk about just the ONE minor lie?

DolFan31
07-28-2004, 12:42 AM
Yes, juggling hand grenades is more dangerous, but someone driving around drunk is extremely dangerous and has led to the deaths of many people, both behind the wheel and not. Driving drunk shows no regard for both your own life and other people's lives as well.

Thanks Ice, thats the point Im trying to make. Its just not getting through their heads.

ohall
07-28-2004, 12:44 AM
Yes, juggling hand grenades is more dangerous, but someone driving around drunk is extremely dangerous and has led to the deaths of many people, both behind the wheel and not. Driving drunk shows no regard for both your own life and other people's lives as well.

WRONG!

Not during the 70's. Driving drunk was not an unaccepted act by most ppl. Obviously a wrong thing to do by today's standards, but not back in the 70's!

Oliver...

iceblizzard69
07-28-2004, 12:45 AM
WRONG!

Not during the 70's. Driving drunk was not an unaccepted act by most ppl. Obviously a wrong thing to do by today's standards, but not back in the 70's!

Oliver...

So that makes it ok? Anyway, nothing I said in my post was wrong. There was nothing about the acceptability of driving drunk. I said driving drunk puts his life and other people's lives in danger, which was true back then and which is true now.

It's amazing how Bush supporters defend everything he does, including driving drunk. Amazing!

DolFan31
07-28-2004, 12:49 AM
So that makes it ok? Anyway, nothing I said in my post was wrong. There was nothing about the acceptability of driving drunk. I said driving drunk puts his life and other people's lives in danger, which was true back then and which is true now.

It's amazing how Bush supporters defend everything he does, including driving drunk. Amazing!

Isnt it? :rolleyes: :confused2

ohall
07-28-2004, 12:51 AM
So that makes it ok? Anyway, nothing I said in my post was wrong. There was nothing about the acceptability of driving drunk. I said driving drunk puts his life and other people's lives in danger, which was true back then and which is true now.

It's amazing how Bush supporters defend everything he does, including driving drunk. Amazing!

I think in fact I implied the opposite, it was wrong BY TODAY'S STANDARDS! However context is very important. If it was as wrong as it is today back then I doubt Bush #43 ever would have done that. The man would have called a freaking cab. After all isn't he the son of a corrupt RICH man?

No it's amazing how DEM supporters, I can't say Kerry supporters because none of you really support Kerry, try and leave context out of everything!

Oliver...

ohall
07-28-2004, 12:52 AM
Isnt it? :rolleyes: :confused2

Another DEM who can't read, and who is context challenged!

Now that's simply amazing!

Oliver...

DolFan31
07-28-2004, 01:00 AM
Another DEM who can't read, and who is context challenged!

Now that's simply amazing!

Oliver...

What the hell are you talking about?

ohall
07-28-2004, 01:18 AM
What the hell are you talking about?

EXACTLY MY POINT!

Oliver...

DolFan31
07-28-2004, 01:28 AM
EXACTLY MY POINT!

Oliver...

WHAT IS YOUR POINT, OLIVER?

ohall
07-28-2004, 01:32 AM
WHAT IS YOUR POINT, OLIVER?

That you do not read what ppl type, you respond to something else when you reply.

All you have to do is re-read the last portion of this THREAD to get what I was typing. It's not difficult.

Oliver...

DolFan31
07-28-2004, 01:36 AM
That you do not read what ppl type, you respond to something else when you reply.

All you have to do is re-read the last portion of this THREAD to get what I was typing. It's not difficult.

Oliver...

Ill admit that I occationally speed read and make an *** out of myself, but I always correct myself.

So youre saying I cant read eh? If that were true, it would be impossible for me to type this all by myself and read what youve posted.

PhinPhan1227
07-28-2004, 01:38 AM
Yes, juggling hand grenades is more dangerous, but someone driving around drunk is extremely dangerous and has led to the deaths of many people, both behind the wheel and not. Driving drunk shows no regard for both your own life and other people's lives as well.

I fully agree. But again, that's not the point. People laud the man because of the "sacrifices" he made. Losing limbs because you stepped on a land mine is one thing. Losing them because you were a drunk idiot is something else. Again, Bush was fortunate enough to never hurt anyone, and strong enough to overcome his addiction. Had he hurt someone I'd say he should have gone to jail.

PhinPhan1227
07-28-2004, 01:41 AM
Oh..my..god..

How many times do I need to type "BESIDES MONICA!" Im sick of this Monica crap. I KNOW HE LIED ABOUT MONICA! Can you come up with any other "lie" of his thats been PROVEN to be a LIE or are going to continue to talk about just the ONE minor lie?


A few things come to mind...the pardons he did as he was leaving office, and trade with China...but I'll have to look up the details there and I'm heading to bed. As for "one minor lie", other than one incident with the DNC break in, Richard Nixon only did "one thing wrong" too. How many lies does it take to make a liar?

DolFan31
07-28-2004, 01:47 AM
A few things come to mind...the pardons he did as he was leaving office, and trade with China...but I'll have to look up the details there and I'm heading to bed. As for "one minor lie", other than one incident with the DNC break in, Richard Nixon only did "one thing wrong" too. How many lies does it take to make a liar?
It was a stupid irrelevant lie.

Using that logic, then everyone's a liar. Which is true.

So the pardons and a trade with China..somehow..hes a liar..because of policies and pardons..I cant wait until you do look those details up, because I have no idea what your going to get at.

PhinPhan1227
07-28-2004, 01:48 AM
It was a stupid irrelevant lie.

Using that logic, then everyone's a liar. Which is true.

So the pardons and a trade with China..somehow..hes a liar..because of policies and pardons..I cant wait until you do look those details up, because I have no idea what your going to get at.


No problem, I'll get back with you tomorrow on them.

P4E
07-28-2004, 03:45 AM
Both incidents happened decades ago.

Clinton's personal life is not any of your business, nor is it any of mine, or any one else thats not related to him.
Clinton's behavior IN OFFICE compromised himself and the office because it made him vulnerable to blackmail. In fact, I recall something about the Israeli's picking up phone-sex chats with Monica. (Anyone else recall something like this?)

I don't otherwise care about his sex life, but I would prefer that he not lie under oath when a court deems the question relevant.

BigFinFan
07-28-2004, 02:28 PM
Yes, juggling hand grenades is more dangerous, but someone driving around drunk is extremely dangerous and has led to the deaths of many people, both behind the wheel and not. Driving drunk shows no regard for both your own life and other people's lives as well.


Wow - nicely put.

Did you forget about Teddy Kennedy - the Democratic Poster Boy? How many years did he spend in jail?

iceblizzard69
07-28-2004, 04:14 PM
Wow - nicely put.

Did you forget about Teddy Kennedy - the Democratic Poster Boy? How many years did he spend in jail?

I don't think what Ted Kennedy did was right either.