• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Al Gore smears the US.

scottyz

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
jamesrage said:
Someone should remind this **** that he works for the US tax payers and not for our enemies.
Isn't he retired? I don't recall that he holds any political office???
 
M

Mickeytrout11

Wow, Navy Pride, I really appreciate the way you go about things. Not the usual conservative mudslinging or my own liberal mud brand :lol:


Do you believe that we are in a war on terrorism and that there are terrorists out there that want to kill you and me?

Part 1: No. Part 2: Yes. There are terrorists that want to kill us. We are not in a war on terrorism. To be honest, I think Saddam and Iraq democracy should've come after bin Laden. We shouldn't completely pull out of the region, but perhaps we should minimize our presence and focus 100% on bin Laden & Co.

Do you believe like many liberals that the war on terror should be handled in a more sensitive way and as John Kerry believes a police action?

As I stated above, all we should be looking for now are bin Laden and his cohorts. We're using 9/11 as a rallying cry when the #1 man responsible for it has been swept aside because he's too hard to catch.

It disgusts me.

So in November if the Democrats start taking seats.....our government will turn its back on military?

So ... right now the Republicans are turning their backs on freedom?

Just using identical logic as yours.
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Mickeytrout11 said:
Wow, Navy Pride, I really appreciate the way you go about things. Not the usual conservative mudslinging or my own liberal mud brand :lol:




Part 1: No. Part 2: Yes. There are terrorists that want to kill us. We are not in a war on terrorism. To be honest, I think Saddam and Iraq democracy should've come after bin Laden. We shouldn't completely pull out of the region, but perhaps we should minimize our presence and focus 100% on bin Laden & Co.



As I stated above, all we should be looking for now are bin Laden and his cohorts. We're using 9/11 as a rallying cry when the #1 man responsible for it has been swept aside because he's too hard to catch.

It disgusts me.



So ... right now the Republicans are turning their backs on freedom?

Just using identical logic as yours.

So what would it take to convince you that we are in a war on terror.......On 9/11/01 we lost 3,000 innocent civilians, if we had not taken Saddam out and he got a Dirty bomb and gave it to Al Quaeda and they planted it in NYC and 3,000,000 were murdered would that convince you?

You see that under the Clinton Adminstration that is exactly what we did in Afghanistan....We knew Bin Laden was there and had sworn to kill all infidels but we ignored the warning......Well we know what happened don't we.......This president did not want to make the same mistake and one thing you have to grudgingly admit is that Saddam will never use a WOMD against the country now......

Now as far as getting Bin Laden........As far as we know Bin Laden might be dead.......Where as we always use to get these nice videos from him every other month the only thing we have received from him is 1 audio tape that could have been rigged in many ways with other tapes using his voice.......

Personally although the left likes to harp on us not getting him I believe he is a non factor at this time probably cowering in some cave in Pakistan...

I Believe that Zaqawi is a much bigger danger at this point and he is the one we should try and take out...........

In closing I hope it does not take a terrorist attack that kills millions for you people on the left to realize that we are in a war for our very existence........
 
M

Mickeytrout11

So what would it take to convince you that we are in a war on terror.......On 9/11/01 we lost 3,000 innocent civilians, if we had not taken Saddam out and he got a Dirty bomb and gave it to Al Quaeda and they planted it in NYC and 3,000,000 were murdered would that convince you?

There is no war without two sides. As I have no doubt that the terrorists would love to fight us, we aren't returning the favor. We are not fighting terrorists! We tried, but it got too hard, so Bush thought it was a good excuse to get back at the guy who tried to kill his Daddy. Whatever happened to catching bin Laden? I 100% supported the Afghanistanian action. I 100% opposed the Iraqi invasion.

It just seemed like the government wanted to catch somebody, and bin laden was too hard, so we went to Iraq. We aren't in a war on terror.

You see that under the Clinton Adminstration that is exactly what we did in Afghanistan....We knew Bin Laden was there and had sworn to kill all infidels but we ignored the warning......Well we know what happened don't we.......This president did not want to make the same mistake and one thing you have to grudgingly admit is that Saddam will never use a WOMD against the country now......

Look, maybe Clinton ignored the warnings, I don't know, and don't want to look it up. But so did Bush. I bet if 9/11 happened on 9/11/98, or some other time in Clinton admin., he would've gone to look for bin Laden. Having Bush hunt down Saddam, who is completely unrelated to 9/11, after it will not make the souls who died that day come back. Both presidents ignored warnings, that is a moot point.

Now as far as getting Bin Laden........As far as we know Bin Laden might be dead.......Where as we always use to get these nice videos from him every other month the only thing we have received from him is 1 audio tape that could have been rigged in many ways with other tapes using his voice.......

Ha, talk about ignore! You just burned Clinton for "ignoring the signs", you say we need to fight a war on terror, yet you're saying, "Ahh, bin laden's dead, that's why we won't look for him." That's ridiculous.

Personally although the left likes to harp on us not getting him I believe he is a non factor at this time probably cowering in some cave in Pakistan...

OK. Let's say he is in Pakistan. Why aren't we there? We're in Iraq, aren't we? Look, terror is my #1 international issue. I wouldn't care if Musharaff (or whatever) said we couldn't go in, I'd say: "bin Laden is there. He killed our people. We're comin' in, whether you like it or not." Is the Bush admin. afraid of that, do they just not care, or are they happen with their new 51st state in Iraq?

I Believe that Zaqawi is a much bigger danger at this point and he is the one we should try and take out...........

In time, in time...bin Laden first, I say. We need to take down terrorists, not random dictators who pissed off our daddies. This is why I think this administration is soft on terror.
 

talloulou

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
15,998
Reaction score
3,962
Location
Tiamat's better half
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
I just hope the dems will bring out Michael Moore for the next election. He's so helpful to their 'cause! And he does make me laugh laugh laugh

:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
 

talloulou

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
15,998
Reaction score
3,962
Location
Tiamat's better half
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Mickeytrout11 said:
There is no war without two sides.

Just 'cause the dems aren't on the side of America doesn't mean there aren't two sides. There are plenty of people out there supporting the work our troops are doing. And there are still plenty of muslim extremists out there bursting with excitement over killing Americans.

As I have no doubt that the terrorists would love to fight us, we aren't returning the favor. We are not fighting terrorists! We tried, but it got too hard, so Bush thought it was a good excuse to get back at the guy who tried to kill his Daddy. Whatever happened to catching bin Laden? I 100% supported the Afghanistanian action. I 100% opposed the Iraqi invasion.

Please we are catching terrorists all the time. And there are tons of them in Iraq! And maybe they were spread out all over and more started coming to Iraq when Bush attacked but you know what I think about that.....GENIUS. It's easier to fight them when we can bait them in a certain area.

Heck and we even caught those 13 out of 800 that you all are upset about.

I do want them to catch Osama though. He's a sneaky bastard but hopefully we'll get em eventually even though the dems would hate that.
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Mickeytrout11 said:
There is no war without two sides. As I have no doubt that the terrorists would love to fight us, we aren't returning the favor. We are not fighting terrorists! We tried, but it got too hard, so Bush thought it was a good excuse to get back at the guy who tried to kill his Daddy. Whatever happened to catching bin Laden? I 100% supported the Afghanistanian action. I 100% opposed the Iraqi invasion.

It just seemed like the government wanted to catch somebody, and bin laden was too hard, so we went to Iraq. We aren't in a war on terror.



Look, maybe Clinton ignored the warnings, I don't know, and don't want to look it up. But so did Bush. I bet if 9/11 happened on 9/11/98, or some other time in Clinton admin., he would've gone to look for bin Laden. Having Bush hunt down Saddam, who is completely unrelated to 9/11, after it will not make the souls who died that day come back. Both presidents ignored warnings, that is a moot point.



Ha, talk about ignore! You just burned Clinton for "ignoring the signs", you say we need to fight a war on terror, yet you're saying, "Ahh, bin laden's dead, that's why we won't look for him." That's ridiculous.



OK. Let's say he is in Pakistan. Why aren't we there? We're in Iraq, aren't we? Look, terror is my #1 international issue. I wouldn't care if Musharaff (or whatever) said we couldn't go in, I'd say: "bin Laden is there. He killed our people. We're comin' in, whether you like it or not." Is the Bush admin. afraid of that, do they just not care, or are they happen with their new 51st state in Iraq?



In time, in time...bin Laden first, I say. We need to take down terrorists, not random dictators who pissed off our daddies. This is why I think this administration is soft on terror.

1. How quickly you forget 9/11/01..........We did not have to be in a war for that nut to attack us.....

2. Did you know that Bin Laden was offered to Clinton on a silver platter in 1996 and Clinton refused him?

3. I don't know if Bin Laden is dead or not but he has become a non factor...

4. How do you know we are not looking for him in Pakistan?

5. Lets just face it, you hate GWB.......He suckered you in 2000, 2002 and 2004 and you can't get over it............
 
M

Mickeytrout11

How quickly you forget 9/11/01

*sigh* Back to the usual conservative drudge. Screaming 9/11/01 at each and every liberal who passes by. Did you not read my post? I supported the Afghanistan action!

I don't know if Bin Laden is dead or not but he has become a non factor...

So you're not interested in looking for him? If a murderer kills, then hides and becomes a "non-factor", do the police just give up? bin Laden is supposedly your entire motivation for war (9/11 - he planned it), yet you're willing to just stop looking for him? Conservatives are soft on terror...

How do you know we are not looking for him in Pakistan?

OK, maybe we are, but we're not looking hard enough. We have too much forces in Iraq. We need to cut the force size drastically, send much of the valiant men and women back home, and put the rest to search for bin Laden and his cronies.

And could you provide proof that we are looking in Pakistan?

Lets just face it, you hate GWB.......He suckered you in 2000, 2002 and 2004 and you can't get over it

Also known as the second most well-known conservative drudge. Anytime the liberal has a point? "Ohhh, you just hate GWB". What does that have to do with anything we were discussing? I don't hate the leader of my country or I'd be in a revolution. I disagree with him, however, and I've never voted for him.
 

easyt65

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
2,061
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Mickeytrout11 said:
Whatever, dude. Just wait, just wait...

Oh, and here's some proven food for thought from an actual source..chew these over while you're at it.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1066

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1068

Lemme guess what'll be next: "ZOGBY is soo liberal! C'mon use an unbiased site like ConservativePollsters.com if you wanna be taken seriously!"
:roll:

By your 'zogby' comment, I take it the links take you to some Poll results. i didn't bother to go there. The Democrats have not realized yet that only LOSERS try to govern by POLLS. The rsesult is flip flopping like Kerry, who was rejected for his imitation of a fish out of water. <flip, flop, flip....> Leaders rule by conviction, make the tough decisions, and stick to it, doing what is right rather than what the latest poll says! THAT is what America wants, as proof by 2000 and 2004 election results!
 

easyt65

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
2,061
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I could not help but respond to the comment above about Bin Laden being a no-factor. WHY? Because YOU can't see him and have no idea what he is doing - out of sight, out of mind? If I recall, no one saw him much or knew much about what he was doing before 9-11, either. Man, THAT comment was just ignorant!
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
So, jamesrage, freedom of speech for some and not for others? Ever read Animal Farm? Wait, no... that'd require IQ.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,055
Reaction score
17,487
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
vergiss said:
So, jamesrage, freedom of speech for some and not for others? .

Which *** should a public servant should be metaphorically kissing?

A. the tax payer's ***.
taxpayersass5np.jpg


B.special interest's ***.
specialinterestsass6rw.jpg


C.Al Qaeda's ***.
alqaedasass0jn.jpg


In case you can't figure that out.Al Gore is a public servant our public servant, he should be kissing our ***.He should not be catering to special interest and accepting money from anyone to attend some bash the **** out of America conferance.

Ever read Animal Farm? Wait, no... that'd require IQ

I thought such a book would be blasphemous to for a liberal to mention since it illistrates how screwed up communism is.
 

python416

Active member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
484
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
easyt65 said:
Yeah, I would hate to put you on the spot and force you to explain why it is OK for Carter and Clinton to use the wire-tapping program but totally criminal for Bush to! :roll:


It is funny how everything the GOP can't make a reasonable response for always find its way back to Clinton.

The difference is that when Clinton and Carter did it, they were targetting specific people for specific reasons.

From the details given so far, it seems as if the NSA is monitoring streams of traffic, and flagging indiviual communications for real-time review by onstaff NSA.

So while Clinton may have done it here and there, Bush is doing to EVERYWHERE! Once the words Jihad and bin Ladin are detected by some supercomputer, it flags a conversation for some NSA spy to get in on the call.

HUGE DIFFERENCE!!!
 

JOHNYJ

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 9, 2005
Messages
567
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Mickeytrout11 said:
Look, the man is telling the truth.

Face it, we have locked up innocent Arabs in the past. We may even have some locked up now.

I don't care if it's war or peace or nukes falling from the sky, anybody should say whatever they want, whenevr they want, wherever they want. Including, and especially, truth.

Just because it's damming to your personal political beliefs doesn't mean it's unpatriotic to say, contrary to most crazy conservatives' beliefs.

It use to be considered unbecoming.For a former President or vice President to criticise the USA when overseas.
Gore is lieing,its that simple.There was no indiscrimiate roundup of any one. If there had been I am sure our liberal press would have noticed.
 

easyt65

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
2,061
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
python416 said:
It is funny how everything the GOP can't make a reasonable response for always find its way back to Clinton.

Ok, how about this - What Bush is doing is perfectly legal, has been found to be so, no matter how much you Liberals whine, and you hate when the GOP shines the light onyour hypocrisy, which is why you can't bear to hear the name of 'He who shall not be named', the Democrat's poster boy!

python416 said:
The difference is that when Clinton and Carter did it, they were targetting specific people for specific reasons.
You are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT - 'He who shall Not Be Named' had all those ILLEGAL FBI files on specific people - all Republicans and political opponents - used for specific reasons - his OWN political survival/agenda! And another big difference, HIS warrantless witretaps and search and seisures of private property were conducted in a time of PEACE, not war - he had NO REAL reason to use the program!

python416 said:
HUGE DIFFERENCE!!!

I could NOT agree more!
 

BWG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
4,373
Reaction score
1,602
Location
South Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
easyt65 said:
By your 'zogby' comment, I take it the links take you to some Poll results. i didn't bother to go there. The Democrats have not realized yet that only LOSERS try to govern by POLLS. The rsesult is flip flopping like Kerry, who was rejected for his imitation of a fish out of water. <flip, flop, flip....> Leaders rule by conviction, make the tough decisions, and stick to it, doing what is right rather than what the latest poll says! THAT is what America wants, as proof by 2000 and 2004 election results!


• Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he's for it. • Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it. • Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it. • Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it. • Bush is against nation building; then he's for it. • Bush is against deficits; then he's for them. • Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again. • Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State. • Bush is for states' right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the Constitution. • Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn't. • Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military ... then he cuts benefits • Bush: "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden." Bush: "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care." .......

:2wave:
 

easyt65

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
2,061
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
:yawn: :violin:

Dude, Just because Kerry got publicly exposed and branded for his Flip Flopping, which landed him on his face at the polls the last election, don't waste my time trying to convince me that the Democrats don't live and die by polls. Bush has remained constent on his position on the war on terror while the Democrats have been for it, against it, voted for it, voted against it, declared hussein had WMD and had to be removed, to 'I'm an Internationalist "(NOT American - thanks, Kerry) to blah, blah, blah.....

Next week you'll be posting the LATEST Zogby poll and explaining how this week what you REALLY meant was.......:roll:
 

Captain America

Jedi Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
23,345
Reaction score
13,699
Location
Wisconsin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
easyt65 said:
:yawn: :violin:

Dude, Just because Kerry got publicly exposed and branded for his Flip Flopping, which landed him on his face at the polls the last election, don't waste my time trying to convince me that the Democrats don't live and die by polls. Bush has remained constent on his position on the war on terror while the Democrats have been for it, against it, voted for it, voted against it, declared hussein had WMD and had to be removed, to 'I'm an Internationalist "(NOT American - thanks, Kerry) to blah, blah, blah.....

Next week you'll be posting the LATEST Zogby poll and explaining how this week what you REALLY meant was.......:roll:

That's all well and good EZ. But, besides skating around the Bush flip-flop episodes posted above ( :spin: ), do you have anything else to add?
 

BWG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
4,373
Reaction score
1,602
Location
South Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I didn't vote for Senator Kerry for his present office of United States Senator nor did I vote for him in his unsuccessful bid for the President of the United States, but that didn't stop almost half of the voting public from doing so. :smile:

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, sounds like Liebaugh and O'Lielly have already worked their magic on yet another victim. No one is wasting your time, but you. You do have control over your time, right? ;)

While being consistent is admirable, when there is a detour in the road, it would be prudent to adjust your course rather than plunge over the cliff. :roll:

Darn, you mean I'll have to wait a whole week to know how I really feel about something. That'll make deciding what to have for dinner tonight all that more interesting. What's in Mehlman's memo this week? :rofl
 

easyt65

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
2,061
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Captain America said:
That's all well and good EZ. But, besides skating around the Bush flip-flop episodes posted above ( :spin: ), do you have anything else to add?

Yeah, I do -

Stop the democratic tactic of changing the subject of the discussion from the fact that Ex-Democratic Vice President Al Gore committed TREASON by travelling to a Muslim country, Saudi Arabia, which has been argued by both major political parties to be supporting terrorism, to accept a large sum of money from saudi to give a speech designed to incite muslim hatred and Violence against this country and against our soldiers in harm's way during a time of war!
 

Captain America

Jedi Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
23,345
Reaction score
13,699
Location
Wisconsin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
easyt65 said:
Yeah, I do -

Stop the democratic tactic of changing the subject of the discussion

You're a democrat? Fooled me.:confused:
 

easyt65

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
2,061
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Captain America said:
You're a democrat? Fooled me.:confused:


Once again, you try sarcasm/humor to divert attention from the main subject of this thread - Gore's Treason!

Acknowledging you have a problem is the first step to recovery! Refusing to talk about Gore's treason for cash, something he learned from his ex-boss, will only mean your problem continues. :(
 

Captain America

Jedi Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
23,345
Reaction score
13,699
Location
Wisconsin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
As if a thread addressing "Bush's treason" or Bush "Flip-flopping" wouldn't be quickly diverted to a "Blame it on Clinton" thread by you or your people in a New York second?:mrgreen:

I always visualize you guys when I read some of your posts. "LALALALALALA I can't hear you....I don't wanna talk about Republican ****-ups. I just wanna bash Clinton. I wanna bash Gore. I wanna bash Moore. Bush is OFF LIMITS....LALALALALALA"

bush_jesus_christ.jpg


C'mon, the righties are FAMOUS for :spin: , wagging the dog, and changing the subject. Hello? McFly?

If you wanna dog out Gore for his stupidity, you gotta be able to deal with Bush's, et al, dumbassness as well. I notice a lot of you guys have a real problem with that. Your side does tend to get very caustic on occassion when not allowed to divert the limelight away from the screw-ups.

As they say, "...if you can't handle the heat, stay out of the kitchen."

But hey, back to the subject of Gore. No doubt. He was wrong. I hope he gets called on it too. He's an idiot. He's always been an idiot and I don't see any reason he's gonna change in the future.

But frankly, I'm more concerned with me paying out the nose for energy when Exxon sets record profits. But that's another talk show. That is one thread that would never stay on topic either, due to the venomous viotrol and diversionary tactics of his apologist supporters.

I am more concerned in the Iraqi quagmire that's costing the lives of children about the same age as mine. I am more concerned about Washington turning it's back on the vets. I am more concerned in Washington's lack of concern for the people here in our own country. Their **** poor approach to education, healthcare, environment, and infrastructure. The oil-fox is in the Fort Knox henhouse people. And those that helped to put them there (yet again), that's on their shoulders too. Right along with over 2000 dead soldiers. That's NOT what I call supporting our troops. With friends like that, who needs enemies?

I am more concerned with Washington's global arrogance and the lack of concern from too many Americans who blindly support them. But hey, lets not change the subject on what a goofball Gore is. I know you're much more comfortable talking about that. I'm all for playing nice.

Did you know it has been said that Gore claims he invented the internet? He looks goofy in a beard too. Call out the National Guard! Call the firing squad!:smile:

Incidently, what public office is Gore currently holding? It has been claimed he is on my payroll. I must have missed that part. I thought he was a private citizen these days. I must really be behind the times. Too much fishing and not enough TV I suppose. I need to get up to speed! I need schoolin'.
 
Last edited:

easyt65

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
2,061
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Captain America said:
If you wanna dog out Gore for his stupidity... But hey, back to the subject of Gore. He's an idiot.... the subject on what a goofball Gore is....

STOP! THAT is the problem with the Democrats! They refuse to acknowledge the fatcs, instead just keep trying to justify, diminish, spin, and explain it away! Gore is undoubtedly an idiot, but that does not justify, explain, diminish, or take away from the fact that GORE COMMITTED TREASON!
 

Captain America

Jedi Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
23,345
Reaction score
13,699
Location
Wisconsin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Well, you won't get any argument from me on that. I could care less if that bafoon gets locked up for a hundred years. Appearantly there is some law that dictates that we, as Americans, cannot exercize our freedom of speech beyong our shoreline. (I'm also thinking of the hatchet job done on the dingy Dixie Chicks by the rightwingnuts)

But, to be honest, you don't sound much different than the left wingnuts who stomp their feet and cry that Cheney, Libby, Bush have committed treason as well.

They should all be locked up together if you ask me.

But to be clear I have much respect for you EZ and I really enjoy reading your views. Many of them do align with mine. It's ok to get sideways with me now and again. I don't really get offended easy. In other words, though we may disagree from time to time, I would not hesitate in pulling over to the side of the road and help you out should you ever get into trouble. Don't ever think I take any of this stuff personal. However, I do get impatient and frustrated with idiots. I do NOT include you in that group at all.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom