What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Terrorist attack

  • #101
auctually i was agreeing with you
 
  • #102
smile.gif
 
  • #103
Wow Bugweed! Thank you for sharing so many of your thoughts about Scott with all of us so publicly.
 
  • #104
heh..you are all a riot!  
smile_n_32.gif

im getting quite a laugh out of all this!
funny, yet very sad..
well, my only consolation is that many many Americans are waking up to the insane drivel of the extreme radical left.
they are making such fools of themselves, that your average americans, even those that dont really pay any attention to politics are learning about how scary and out of touch with reality they are..
they are destroying themselves..
that can only be good..
I hope this particular brand of liberalism, the kind that supports our enemies and thinks WE are the terrorists, dies a quick death..

Scot
 
  • #105
Bugweed,
thanks man! I think you are cool too!
smile.gif

(that wasnt sarcasm..that was genuine)
im glad I can provide you with such entertainment!
just dont take yourself so seriously there buddy, you are going to blow a vessel if you dont calm down..

despite your ramblings, I actually agree with you about the state of the government, BOTH parties.
I think the entire system is corrupt.

the republicans in our Government care most about...
themselves and keeping their power.

The democrats in out government care most about..
themselves and keeping their power.

neither party really cares about the people at all.
yes, I support Bush and Iraq. because it was GOOD for Iraq.
Iraq is better off now than under Saddam..no question.
but I disagree with many republican policies too..
on the environment, stem cells, gay marriage, I support all those things..
and I cant stand religion in politics!!!
keep your bible to yourself.

I also support many "democrat" ideals as well.
environment, gay marriage, etc..
so I agree and disagree with PARTS of both party's ideas..
I disagree more overall with the democrats in office just because they are generally insane.
and they use emotion and lies, not logic and reason, to inflame their base...I hate that.

I think some independants would be great.
I liked Nader, and McCain..
I wish Giuliani would run for president, I would support him!
if he could do for the whole country what he did for NYC, it would be fantastic..

Scot
 
  • #106
Laura, Nothing I said, to me, is a put down on Scot. When you join a party, many times you become the party, sing the party line, etc. It happens to a lot of folks, and they lose themselves in the party. I like Scot, but what I am saying is I do not think I have heard Scottys real opinion, just the same party garbage I hear from those who are caught up in the party, not focusing on what is really important. Not the party line, but the peoples line. I have no doubt the parties that are in power now are only doing what is good for the party, not the people, and I do not believe that is Scots stand. I think he IS for the people, but, like several folks I know, spouts party doctrine, and does not express his own personal views, but party views. It isn't a crime, Laura, and I am not on Scottys behind. I just do not think that I have heard Scots own opinions on what is good for the country, but the parties opinions. If parties were not our the driving force in this country, and we kept away from parties, and listened to the peoples views and what the people wanted, and where they wanted to go, then parties, and party rhetoric would not exist, and we, as a nation, would only be seeking the path best chosen for us all, not one group (party) over another. I truly think that this country needs several parties, and not just two. I feel too many times as though there is no REAL choice here, but the lesser of two evils, and who needs that in the country you love? With a wider choice, no one party would ever hold complete control in the Houses, or be able to push an agenda which is always in favor of a party, when it is the people who matter, not a stupid party. I am no Democrat, I am no Republican. I am an American, ready to stand in defense of my country, not a party agenda. If I am not clear, then I apologize. I enjoy Scots ideas, and opinions, and his sense of humor, and if it appears I am Scots case, I am not. Scot has one really good mind, and I would like to hear him speak his own thoughts, as I do not think I have heard them, but party speak. I am in no way putting anyone down, but I hope I am making myself clear.
 
  • #107
funny..I have never even joined a party.
and I have already made it clear I strongly disagree with about half of the Republican ideals..and I agree with half of the Democrat ideals.
I cant stand Rush...Michael Savage is an insane rambling lunatic. (so is Michael Moore)

but I guess if you support the president on just ONE area, you are automatically considered a "party line stooge" and just "become the party, sing the party line," lose yourself in the party, etc.

that sounds like mindless stereotyping to me..
a bit close-minded dont you think??

Scot
 
  • #108
I did not consider that, Scot. Thanks for pointing that out to me. If I get back east sometime, I am going to look you up, and we can talk face to face about these things. Then, like anyone sane, we will go bogging, and leave this crap behind!!
 
  • #109
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Bugweed @ July 15 2005,2:52)]I did not consider that, Scot. Thanks for pointing that out to me. If I get back east sometime, I am going to look you up, and we can talk face to face about these things. Then, like anyone sane, we will go bogging, and leave this crap behind!!
Steve,
im there!
I know some great bogs, look me up!
smile.gif


Scot
 
  • #110
Now there ya go...two people who can disagree and shake hands. lol Well done!
 
  • #111
well then your an independant
smile.gif


and that's the best way to be. independant.
 
  • #113
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]If one radical religion is out of hand, then they cannot come here--PERIOD!!!!
well, it's not technically "one radical religion", it's one radical group of people... but you could consider it another religion since they don't follow true islam.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ] will NEVER vote "common" parties again.
isn't that just as bad as sticking to only one party? You're not really voting for who you agree with, you're just voting for someone else so you won't vote for those two parties.
 
  • #114
"If one radical religion is out of hand, then they cannot come here--PERIOD!!!!"

If this also applies to radical Christians, I agree. Fair is fair.  

"Iraq's borders are a sieve...liberals use that arguement when they talk about how many new terrorists are pouring into Iraq..the borders arent secure when we ARE there.. you assume they were secure BEFORE we got there?!"

You're assuming, of course, that we're the only country that can secure borders.

"can you honestly believe the weapons were NOT moved out??
please...get a clue. the WMD's were there..they still are...somewhere."

No...they were destroyed by weapons inspectors in the early to mid-nineties.  Look it up!  You guys just canNOT get over the fact that you were lied to, you chose to ignore the facts and believe the lies, and you are wrong. There is absolutely NO evidence that Saddam moved his WMD to other countries.  Iraq has been under satellite scrutiny since the first Gulf War, both the low-earth orbit(LEO) and geo-synchronous(GSO) types.  PLUS..we had no fly zones over the north and south of Iraq. Patrolled 24-7 by the US Air Force and US Navy. Any movements of such a massive amount of stuff would have shown up on film, or would have been seen by our pilots.  And it didn't. The evidence is just not there. Don't you think your heroes would have said something, if they had evidence? There were weapons inspectors on the ground for eight months before the start of this war. They had full and total access to all sites...and they found NOTHING.  

If Saddam did have WMD...don't you think he would have used them on our troops when we invaded?  Seems like a no-brainer to me.    

When Saddam was in power..the borders were very tight.  Sure..people crossed over, but not many. Saddam had them hunted down and umm..disposed of. Saddam absolutely did not want radical Islamists in his country.  He did import Arabs. He liked to kick all the Kurds out of their towns, gas them en masse, and import Arabs to take over their businesses, jobs, and houses.  Why did Saddam do this?  The Kurds wanted/want independence from Iraq, that's why. They would usurp his power and cause him all sorts of trouble.

The point is...Iraq's borders were much tighter before we invaded. Our invasion has caused complete chaos. As far as I can tell..the Iraqi people are NOT better off for our occupation.

And BTW...10 car bombs went off simultaneously in Baghdad today.  Al Qaeda claimed responsibility. Over 20 killed, and more than 100 wounded.  So much for the insurgency being "in it's last throes," to quote **** Cheney. The Al Qaeda not so nice guys have found the perfect way to bring the country into a civil war of our making.
 
  • #115
Youve ignored me twice now April, what about all the good the army has done for the people? It has improved their standards of living. They have built more schools and more Iraqis are getting an education. Just look at one of Lauras previous posts to see what all the good things the army has done.
If you ask me, it was worth it invading because it has helped the people there so much.
 
  • #116
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]You're assuming, of course, that we're the only country that can secure borders.
Actually we can't even do that. Just look at the border with Mexico.
 
  • #117
and look how many innocents were killed by our american troops needlessly!

look at how many DON"T WANT TO BE THERE!
 
  • #118
Well, I was going to go and tape my fingers together and not post.

I support the war on terrorism but had sincerely hoped we would have received more support from other nations, that it would have been better funded, and that considerably more troops would have been sent over there.  Heck, we've got all these reservists collecting a monthly pay check... send them all over and let's make a statement while improving the quality of life for so many.  Probably not as simple as that but at least it was in my mind.
 
  • #119
"Youve ignored me twice now April, what about all the good the army has done for the people? It has improved their standards of living. They have built more schools and more Iraqis are getting an education. Just look at one of Lauras previous posts to see what all the good things the army has done.
If you ask me, it was worth it invading because it has helped the people there so much. "

Please tell me exactly HOW our invasion helped the Iraqi people. How has their standard of living been improved?

They are subject, at any time, to being blown up by insurgents, a problem they didn't have before.  

Their electricity and water is on an average of about 5 hours a day, whereas before, it was on 24/7.

There is no garbage collection. Very little sewage treatment.  

They wait in long lines for gasoline because the oil pipelines are being blown up by insurgents faster than they can be repaired from the last attack by insurgents.  This was not a problem before.

They wait in long lines for meagre food. They didn't before.  

But at least they can go to school?  

I'll believe what actual Iraqis say before I believe any statistics that come out of the White House. 49% of Iraqi children can go to school because the other 51% are dead.  Duh. Worthless.  

I guarantee if conscription with NO exceptions was re-instated in the US, this exercise in futility would be over in about 2 weeks. The first people I'd send would be the Bush twins for front line duty.

The army/navy/marines are trying their hardest to do good things. They are being frustrated in their efforts by the administration. Unfortunately, because we went in there half-assed and with not enough troops...they can't do as much as they would like to do. Any general who had the temerity to suggest that we needed to send in more troops was summarily fired by the White House. This is not the troop's fault, obviously.  They are doing the best they can with what they got.  And the administration gave them short shrift, too. Not enough armor, food, support, hazardous duty pay, etc.

The arrow of blame for this horrible, bloody mess points straight to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, and it's current resident, IMO.

And I repeat..I'd bet good money you didn't give one diddly about the Iraqi people 3 years ago.  Your belated concern about them is suspect.  You didn't care about them until you were told to.
 
  • #120
amen sister! let me hear ya!
 
Back
Top