Note to President Bush

[MSgt]

There is no lie, but whatever it took to do the necessary thing? Unh-unh, GySgt, this is exactly like Bill Clinton saying he did not have sex with that woman because he thought oral sex wasn't sex. Which we all know was talking around the truth. If the American people were not told the whole truth about our aims, then we were lied to. What if someone sold you a car and told you that the air didn't work, but conveniently forgot to tell you that the transmission had been replaced three times in five years? Would you consider that withholding of information a lie? Or simply the seller doing what was necessary to sell you the car?

Hey, you're preaching to the choir. I just simply agree with the necessary steps involved to get us there. Any information not given was in our best interests against this long term threat. What you are talking about with regards to the car analogy is meant to screw over the buyer.

....but like I said, the public does not know everything about what was found in Iraq.

 

[mixedmedia]

What you are talking about with regards to the car analogy is meant to screw over the buyer.

But in light of the fact of why we were lied to, because the American people wouldn't want to buy that car, it is totally analagous.

I'm just trying to get you to say the word lie, GySgt. Is it really so difficult? :mrgreen:

 

[mixedmedia]

Hey, you're preaching to the choir. I just simply agree with the necessary steps involved to get us there. Any information not given was in our best interests against this long term threat. What you are talking about with regards to the car analogy is meant to screw over the buyer.

....but like I said, the public does not know everything about what was found in Iraq.

Somehow I missed your last line. Found in Iraq before or after the invasion?

 

[MSgt]

But in light of the fact of why we were lied to, because the American people wouldn't want to buy that car, it is totally analagous.

I'm just trying to get you to say the word lie, GySgt. Is it really so difficult? :mrgreen:

All politicians lie. For me to say that President Bush hasn't lied would be like saying that he stands out from every President we have ever had. All leaders with a magnitude of responsibility must lead a life of discretion and caution when speaking to a world full of enemies and interests.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I'm proud to be an American, too. And it's not based on pie-in-the-sky half-truths and mythology. I love us for who we are.

Umm what parts did I make up? That the U.S. saved the free world, that American capitalism has done more to curb world hunger then all of the socialist communits totalitarian regimes in history? Just which part?

So multi-party countries are second-rate? And what exactly do you base that on? The overwhelming interest shown by Americans in our political system?:roll:

No, one needs look no further than Canada to see how great multi-party governments are, have you ever watched a Canadian parliamentary debate, it is not a pretty picture, after a fight broke out between the minority parties and the majority over the new bill to increase the rations of free liquor that they give to the homeless over there, the minority parties all banded together and ganged up on the majority party, then they went directly for the majority leader and castrated him live on CSPAN and then took turns grinding his balls into the ground with their boots. How's that for a non-violent country, eh? (the part about giving free booze to the homeless is true by the way).

In a more pragmatic and realistic sense, yes. Political philosophies influence political action. Stop playing dense. Or are you playing at being perceptive? Which is it?

If you find a Republican who lives by the neo-con philosophy I'll kiss your arse.

 

[mixedmedia]

Umm what parts did I make up? That the U.S. saved the free world, that American capitalism has done more to curb world hunger then all of the socialist communits totalitarian regimes in history? Just which part?

It's the parts you leave out that need to also be considered and accepted into your thoughtful analysis of our country. Otherwise, please, don't procreate. Your children will be insufferable.

No, one needs look no further than Canada to see how great multi-party governments are, have you ever watched a Canadian parliamentary debate, it is not a pretty picture, after a fight broke out between the minority parties and the majority over the new bill to increase the rations of free liquor that they give to the homeless over there, the minority parties all banded together and ganged up on the majority party, then they went directly for the majority leader and castrated him live on CSPAN and then took turns grinding his balls into the ground with their boots. How's that for a non-violent country, eh? (the part about giving free booze to the homeless is true by the way).

This does not prove the inadequacy of multi-party governments, Mr. Libertarian.

If you find a Republican who lives by the neo-con philosophy I'll kiss your arse.

Paul Wolfowitz....and you can forget the ass-kissing part, although I've no doubt you'd do it.

 

[KCConservative]

In your Oval Office speech on Sunday, you specifically addressed those of us who “did not support my decision to send troops to Iraq.” You went on to request that we “not give in to despair” and “not give up on this fight for freedom.”

We want to clarify your misrepresentation of our position: We are not in “despair” (except at the thought of three more years of your administration), nor do we want to “give up on this fight for freedom.” On the contrary: we believe that now that we are in Iraq, we can’t leave until we clean up the mess you’ve made. We have to “win” this war, if for no other reason than we owe it to the poor, battered Iraqi people, who never attacked us and never threatened us, and are now as much the victims of your unresolved father issues and crass exploitation of 9/11 as they were of Saddam Hussein.

The beef we have with you, Mr. President, is that we don’t think you’re the man to do it. Since the inception of this misbegotten fiasco, you’ve proven yourself to be a colossally incompetent commander-in-chief, who didn’t miss an opportunity to bungle this war at every stage, and whose egregiously poor planning and mishandling of the war may have permanently scuttled any chance of victory we ever had. Considering your astonishing record of blunders, gaffs, mistakes, errors, botches, and failures, we have absolutely no faith in your ability to lead this effort to anything resembling “mission accomplished.” That’s why we voted for a horse-faced, “flip-flopping” gasbag in the last election. We wouldn’t trust you to handle a paper route, let alone a war.

Are we clear now?

Sincerely,

Those of Us Who May or May Not Have Supported Sending Troops To Iraq, But Definitely Didn’t Support You Sending Them

You'll need to save your complaint for the voting booth in 08. Red state America thinks differently than you. Until then, it sucks to be you.

 

[MSgt]

It's the parts you leave out that need to also be considered and accepted into your thoughtful analysis of our country. Otherwise, please, don't procreate. Your children will be insufferable.


This does not prove the inadequacy of multi-party governments, Mr. Libertarian.


Paul Wolfowitz....and you can forget the ass-kissing part, although I've no doubt you'd do it.

I'd do it.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

It's the parts you leave out that need to also be considered and accepted into your thoughtful analysis of our country. Otherwise, please, don't procreate. Your children will be insufferable.

Ah the white liberal guilt,

The problem with the liberal mindset is not that you acknowledge the shortcomings of our nation but rather you focus on them while you downplay the failures of other nations, or worse yet you try to blame the shortfailings of these other nations on the evil capitalist Americans.

Your guy's whole problem is that you're miserable, you wake up in the mornings with a pessimistic approach to life you focus on the negatives and if you see someone speak out to say how great this country is you raise a fit and try to down play it because you're thinking: "what right does that guy have to be so positive and happy when I'm so miserable? It must be his fault so let's take him down a notch a point out to him why this country sucks."

This does not prove the inadequacy of multi-party governments, Mr. Libertarian.

Umm what's a better alternative? I'd say Libertarian but there's to many nut job anarchists in our party and the socialists would never go for it anyways.

I think that the Republican and Democratic parties are by and large the most representative of their constituencies For example: the Republicans have many anarcho-capitalist tendencies yet they still believe in Social Programs, the Democrats have alot of Socialist tendencies yet they still favor Capitalism at their core.

So basically what I'm trying to say is that when you considered the bigger scheme of things as to the whole array on the political spectrum, socialism on the far left and libertarian on the far right, then the Democrats and the Republicans are right in the middle except the Reps lean slightly to the right and the Dems lean slightly to the left and normally they would do an ok job of balancing eachother out as long as neither one of them leans to far to one side of the spectrum and tips the scale in favor of the other side.

Unfortunately, I think that this is exactly what has happened with the Democrats. They have strayed way to far to the left and that's why they can't win any elections and since they've strayed so far left that through a forced perspective the Republicans only look like they've leaned right by comparison when in actuality it's not the Republicans who have shifted but it is in fact the Democrats.

Paul Wolfowitz....and you can forget the ass-kissing part, although I've no doubt you'd do it.

Does he refer to himself as a neo-conservative or is that just a lable that you liberals pin on your political opponents because you disagree with their ideas? The thing about conservatives is that we all have vastly different ideologies yet we still manage to find common ground because we all have one thing in common in that we are not ashamed to be proud to be Americans and we'll wear an American flag on our t-shirts smack in the middle of Paris and if they don't like well then **** them.

 

[mixedmedia]

Ah the white liberal guilt,

The problem with the liberal mindset is not that you acknowledge the shortcomings of our nation but rather you focus on them while you downplay the failures of other nations, or worse yet you try to blame the shortfailings of these other nations on the evil capitalist Americans.

Your guy's whole problem is that you're miserable, you wake up in the mornings with a pessimistic approach to life you focus on the negatives and if you see someone speak out to say how great this country is you raise a fit and try to down play it because you're thinking: "what right does that guy have to be so positive and happy when I'm so miserable? It must be his fault so let's take him down a notch a point out to him why this country sucks."

Once again, you try to pin me with weak, monotone stereotypes. Not a word of these two paragraphs describes me. Except, of course, American. How easy it is to debate when you have a plethora of canned responses to draw on instead of commenting on what someone has actually said.

Umm what's a better alternative? I'd say Libertarian but there's to many nut job anarchists in our party and the socialists would never go for it anyways.

I think that the Republican and Democratic parties are by and large the most representative of their constituencies For example: the Republicans have many anarcho-capitalist tendencies yet they still believe in Social Programs, the Democrats have alot of Socialist tendencies yet they still favor Capitalism at their core.

So basically what I'm trying to say is that when you considered the bigger scheme of things as to the whole array on the political spectrum, socialism on the far left and libertarian on the far right, then the Democrats and the Republicans are right in the middle except the Reps lean slightly to the right and the Dems lean slightly to the left and normally they would do an ok job of balancing eachother out as long as neither one of them leans to far to one side of the spectrum and tips the scale in favor of the other side.

Unfortunately, I think that this is exactly what has happened with the Democrats. They have strayed way to far to the left and that's why they can't win any elections and since they've strayed so far left that through a forced perspective the Republicans only look like they've leaned right by comparison when in actuality it's not the Republicans who have shifted but it is in fact the Democrats.

Well, at least you're finally saying something real. I tend to believe that, even with - perhaps even due to - the partisan polarization our system is experiencing at this time, faith in the two-party system is at an all-time low and that the introduction of at least one viable new party could revitalize American politics and its relevance to average Americans - most especially those indifferent or alienated by the current system.

Does he refer to himself as a neo-conservative or is that just a lable that you liberals pin on your political opponents because you disagree with their ideas? The thing about conservatives is that we all have vastly different ideologies yet we still manage to find common ground because we all have one thing in common in that we are not ashamed to be proud to be Americans and we'll wear an American flag on our t-shirts smack in the middle of Paris and if they don't like well then **** them.

http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/index.html

Project for a New American Century
Wolfowitz however could not remain completely out of politics for long and in 1997 he became one of the charter members, alongside Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, Richard Perle and others, of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). William Kristol and Robert Kagan founded this neo-conservative think-tank with the stated aim of "American global leadership" through military strength. In 1998 Wolfowitz was one of the signatories of the PNAC open letter to President Bill Clinton that was highly critical of his continued policy of containing Iraq. The PNAC advocated preemptive U.S. military intervention against Iraq and other "potential aggressor states" to "protect our vital interests in the Gulf". In 2000 the PNAC produced its magnum opus the 90-page report on Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century that advocated the redeployment of U.S. troops in permanent bases in strategic locations throughout the world where they can be ready to act to protect U.S. interests abroad. The Clinton administration however remained unmoved and pressed on with containment.

I have never spoken with Wolfowitz so I don't know what he calls himself, but he is most certainly a member of the PNAC and a very prominent member at that. And, of course, he was Deputy Secretary of Defense during the run-up to the war, and now, of course, president of the World Bank. So do you suppose a member of the PNAC in such prestigious and influential roles will not bring his political philosophies to work with him everyday?

 

[mixedmedia]

I'd do it.

Awwww...shucks, sarge, you flatter me. :3oops: