PDA

View Full Version : Republicans against Bush



djmaddmartin
09-25-2005, 09:12 AM
Join up now!
http://www.thoughtfulpolitics.citymaker.com/page/page/1322728.htm
Nice poster too.
http://expatsagainstbush.typepad.com/home/materials/shame.pdf

man
09-25-2005, 10:43 AM
Not trying to offend but I read many of the pages on that site and I would have to say that whoever wrote that is very ignorant. Not to mention their statement about how the main idea of Republicans is tax cuts, they obviously aren't true republicans and have no understanding of what it means to be conservative. I love how it talks about Katrina like Bush sat and did nothing. He did exactly what he was supposed to do, he gave the issue over to FEMA, what else is he supposed to do? You want him to go down to NO and secure the levees himself? Again, not trying to offend just stating and opinion.

chriduke
10-16-2005, 08:13 PM
I agree with you he did everything he was supposed to do.

PD code 805D
10-16-2005, 08:21 PM
^^^im with yall^^^ sometimes i wonder why people like that are here in america. Its free which means " Free to live here and FREE TO LEAVE" so if you dont like our country LEAVE and we will throw missles at your yellow ass as you make your way to france or cananda.


Sorry i get alittle PISSED off when i think about people talking shit about the president when Bush is keeping your ass free from Communism and anarchy.

djmaddmartin
10-16-2005, 08:46 PM
Typical ignorant statement that mocks every right that people have fought for by standing against what they saw to be unjust and wrong. Funny thing is its your own.
^^^im with yall^^^ sometimes i wonder why people like that are here in america. Its free which means " Free to live here and FREE TO LEAVE" so if you dont like our country LEAVE and we will throw missles at your yellow ass as you make your way to france or cananda.


Sorry i get alittle PISSED off when i think about people talking shit about the president when Bush is keeping your ass free from Communism and anarchy.

RandomGuy
10-17-2005, 12:31 AM
^^^im with yall^^^ sometimes i wonder why people like that are here in america. Its free which means " Free to live here and FREE TO LEAVE" so if you dont like our country LEAVE and we will throw missles at your yellow ass as you make your way to france or cananda.


Sorry i get alittle PISSED off when i think about people talking shit about the president when Bush is keeping your ass free from Communism and anarchy.
Ok, so those who petition the government, which is stated as a RIGHT in the bill of RIGHTS, should leave the country? Smart :jerkit:

MachNU
10-17-2005, 11:14 AM
Man i think i am jsut going to leave this one alone i dont want to make anyone fell stupid!!!!!! (and i mean the left wing liberals and the democrates)

djmaddmartin
10-17-2005, 10:56 PM
You have such a way with spelling and grammar. But us liberals are too stupid to notice stupidity. :lmfao:
Man i think i am jsut going to leave this one alone i dont want to make anyone fell stupid!!!!!! (and i mean the left wing liberals and the democrates)

MachNU
10-18-2005, 01:55 PM
You have such a way with spelling and grammar. But us liberals are too stupid to notice stupidity. :lmfao:

MUHAHAHAHAHA thats what happeneds when you are typing real fast and no going back and checking. Sucks to Rush!

Anyways someone who can openly call themselfs liberal is nothing more than ignorant. But i will grant that not all Democrats and Liberals are Left Wing Cocksuckers but most are. I am just still waiting for some dumbass liberal to blame the wind on blowing aginst bush or some other republican.

Reason For Edit: :2up:

djmaddmartin
10-18-2005, 07:40 PM
Your lack of tact, intelligent sentence structure and comments elude to the poor level of understanding and awareness you possess about whats going on in this country. Everyday that passes you support those who are taking away our rights and freedoms. The day will come when you relize you are being oppressed by those who you supported. By then it may be too late.

Reason for edit: :confused: bamboozled political novice :confused:

MUHAHAHAHAHA thats what happeneds when you are typing real fast and no going back and checking. Sucks to Rush!

Anyways someone who can openly call themselfs liberal is nothing more than ignorant. But i will grant that not all Democrats and Liberals are Left Wing Cocksuckers but most are. I am just still waiting for some dumbass liberal to blame the wind on blowing aginst bush or some other republican.

Reason For Edit: :2up:

MachNU
10-18-2005, 07:59 PM
Your lack of tact, intelligent sentence structure and comments elude to the poor level of understanding and awareness you possess about whats going on in this country. Everyday that passes you support those who are taking away our rights and freedoms. The day will come when you relize you are being oppressed by those who you supported. By then it may be too late.

Reason for edit: :confused: bamboozled political novice :confused:

OH MY GOD Give me one or even more good reasons of the rights and freedoms that the Republicans and Bush are taking away from me. I havent seen any yet. Also i would take it that you voted for Kerry and it you do say you did then you have NO REASON to talk becuase that was the most ignorant man to ever walk to the face of this earth. So give me some good reasons of the rights and freedoms that are getting taking away from me.

djmaddmartin
10-18-2005, 08:57 PM
Can you even put a paragraph together? So lets see whats on the chopping block. Loss of privacy: ( Patriot Act ) Women's right to control her own body: ( Soon to be gone Roe vs. Wade) The right for us not to have any one religion dictate political policy and rational thought: ( Seperation of Church and State disappearing) ..... I'll list more if you want me too but you can benifit from a little reading. Rubbie!


OH MY GOD Give me one or even more good reasons of the rights and freedoms that the Republicans and Bush are taking away from me. I havent seen any yet. Also i would take it that you voted for Kerry and it you do say you did then you have NO REASON to talk becuase that was the most ignorant man to ever walk to the face of this earth. So give me some good reasons of the rights and freedoms that are getting taking away from me.

MachNU
10-18-2005, 09:27 PM
Can you even put a paragraph together? So lets see whats on the chopping block. Loss of privacy: ( Patriot Act ) Women's right to control her own body: ( Soon to be gone Roe vs. Wade) The right for us not to have any one religion dictate political policy and rational thought: ( Seperation of Church and State disappearing) ..... I'll list more if you want me too but you can benifit from a little reading. Rubbie!

HAHAHAHAAHA Can you even follow directions?

I asked you to give me examples all you did was give me some statments!

You want to sit there and call me ignorant when when i asked you to prove yourself, you did the most Demorcratic Liberal move and didnt answer the question but with a statment. A counteroffer you will. Now with the small bit of information you have me about your first defence which wa womens rights with the case of Roe vs. Wade.

So to set this off since you really dont know what a debate is i will help you. Now jsut try and follow as i "Debate" your ignorant answers with proof ( since i wont dance around the answer like you have )!

The Patriot Act since you brought it up and i dont think you have a clue what it is i will help you. ( Oh heres my back-up for it http://www.cdt.org/security/011031summary.shtml for those who want to read it themselves. ) The Patriot Act is something that does nothing more than PROTECT your rights. People complain and bitch about how there information that is sent all around the internet every waking second of the day is unprotected from people who like to steal that information. Well the Patriot Act is being made to help Internet providers strengthen there firewalls and keep hackers out so that everything you do on the internet is secure. It also is helping the FBI CIA NSA or any other top lvl organization track down cyber criminals and terroriost or jstu any other joker screwing around with there computer, to be able to trap trace them and find there signal faster to get them behind bars. So to me that is protecting my right to privacy not trying to let everyone see it.

Now you said Roe vs. Wade ( for the people who want every bit of information http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/ )

This case is nothing more than setting in motion up to today all the cases against aborations or whether it is right or wrong. That had nothing to do with womens rights, but it had to do with ethical rights. Which i cant argue against you becuase Ethical Rights is based on the person ethical decisions. But back then this lady wanted a aboration but was not given one becuase back then there had to be a direct medical reason that was at rick to the mother. But becuase the constitution was to vague the law was void becuase it didnt say yes or no to direct medical and bodily harm. So that has nothign to do with womens rights, since i the fact it is 32 years old and today things have changed.

Now onto your last few sentences where i ahve no clue what you mean since it has no meaning, but i do get what you say by Division of Church and State and that is an arguement that has been going on since Roman / Catholic times. Today it is a good thing that church adn state stay devided, but with this great nation being the land of the free, people are free to have all the religions in the world in this nation. Now since there are so many religions and so many coinsiding with each other, or course there is going to be some argument. Now i may be wrong on clarifying then tell me what you meant.

Now if you would I would love to hear your rebuttle.

Also i dont care about grammer errors or what not you get the jist and then move on.

djmaddmartin
10-18-2005, 10:35 PM
Well we know you can post up links:

But all your links still don't debunk what I have said. Why don't you watch the Daily Show and lighten up. Bill O'Riley is on the show right now and its funny as shit. Its funny when he can't get in the last word.

I can post up links too but lets not waste time when we both know your not interested.

True the patriot act does good things but it leaves the door open for abuses dumb ass.

And lets not get going with the right wing church in this country ( not other countries!). They are the dog you have let out sacrificing our liberties to achieve conservative objectives. And when it can't get what it wants from the Republicans it will bite the hand that let it out.

And its my prediction that women will loose the right to choose within the next 10yrs. Which will lead to loss for many other rights. Don't believe me, just wait and see.

And we all know that Chritianity is the dominant religion in the US. But thats because the Puritans left! LOL So maybee you have a thing with this "if you don't like it leave".

You may be on to something, since Liberals and Democrats that are registered voters have a higher level of education and income than Convervatives and Republican registered voters. Don't believe me look it up. So if we all left it would be interesting. We could turn the US into the worlds largest armed McDonalds!

malfeas99
10-18-2005, 11:18 PM
You may be on to something, since Liberals and Democrats that are registered voters have a higher level of education and income than Convervatives and Republican registered voters. Don't believe me look it up. So if we all left it would be interesting. We could turn the US into the worlds largest armed McDonalds!

Really?

Post up your proof. And I hope it includes the 'list of IQ per state' with all the high IQ's being blue states, so we can all laugh at you when I post the snopes article debunking that, as well as any other 'evidence' you have.

Income I can possibly believe, given that most democratic voters live in places with higher costs of living, and therefore tend to have more money (not that they're really 'wealthier', when you adjust for PPP), but then again, you have the lower 40% or more income tax bracket overwhelmingly voting Democrat (gee, wonder why that is). Also, it's known that the average personal contribution to the democratic party is much higher than the average contribution to the republican party. What that tells me is that there's a lot of limousine liberals and guilty celebrities footing the bill, though that's merely supposition.

But education? Please. Outside the halls of acedemia, you'd be hard pressed to make that one stick. But it'll be fun to see you try, because you need to believe this in order to feel like an intellectually and morally superior human being, when so far all I've seen spewing out of your mouth is just another brand of collectivist fascism. No thanks.

P.S.: You're out of your freaking mind if you actually believe abortion will ever become illegal again. Even if Roe vs Wade is overturned, that's not even CLOSE to the same as it being abolished.

P.P.S.: It took me 5 minutes of looking to find this snipped from a report by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press:

Generally, slightly more Americans consider themselves a Democrat than Republican. Still, about a third of Americans identified themselves as a Democratic supporter with a slightly smaller percentage as Republican. The rest, again about a third, supported a minor party, didn't know their partisan affiliation or call themselves independent.

As far as income levels go, the least well-off are overwhelmingly Democratic: Those earning less than $20,000 a year call themselves Democratic 43 percent to 18 percent and those earning $20,000 to $30,000 Democratic 37 percent to 24 percent. Those making between $30,000 and $50,000 are Democrats, 34 percent to 30 percent, while those making between $50,000 and $75,000 are more Republican, 35 percent to 29 percent. People who make $75,000 or more are strongly GOP, 39 percent to 28 percent.

Because education levels track income levels, there aren't many surprises on how educational attainment affects partisanship. Just as with income, as educational levels go up, more people are inclined to be Republican. Americans with less than a high-school education are overwhelmingly Democratic, 41 percent to 20 percent, while people who have just a high-school degree are Democrats, 34 percent to 28 percent. People with some college training tend to be Republicans, 32 percent to 31 percent while those with at least bachelor's degrees are Republican, 33 percent to 32 percent. I've seen other surveys on partisanship that show people with advanced degrees to be more Democratic than Republican, making those just bachelor's degrees more Republican if they're broken out of all those with some sort of a college degree.

Oops, you lose, again. Life's so much easier without me here to expose your stupid self-fellating lies, isn't it? Too bad, suck it up.

djmaddmartin
10-19-2005, 12:39 AM
http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=539

Or if your too lazy to go to the link here is a screen shot:

malfeas99
10-19-2005, 06:53 AM
http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=539

Or if your too lazy to go to the link here is a screen shot:

Even in your own screenshot, it's ONLY the graduate specs that throw the trend (i.e. more education means more identifying towards republican instead of democrat). I specifically said that the halls of acedemia throw the curve, 'graduate' includes every career student, every insulated, idealistic professor, etc. I don't have enough data to tell you whether that makes up the difference, but those demographics are very strongly democrat traditionally. How and why that's the case can be an interesting point of research and debate, however, I can assure you it does not mean that 'all smart people vote Democrat'. I'm far smarter than you, and I'd string myself up by my testicles before I voted Democrat. Luckily for you, I'd do the same before I voted Republican also.

I notice you didn't mention anything about income. Maybe you thought that because, on the macro level, states with higher average incomes tend to vote democrat meant that people who made more money voted democrat. Looks like someone hasn't taken any coursework in macro- vs. micro- economics, as well as statistical analysis. Oops.

P.S.: This study is a cumulative from 1972 to 2000... which includes the vietnam war. That in and of itself could have skewed things a certain way. If you want a better idea, I'd get a smaller sample size, or at least, if you're interested, compare party identification during times of war vs relative peace, or different decades.

djmaddmartin
10-19-2005, 08:29 AM
http://www.depresident.com/george-c-student-bush-video.asp
sweet. I asume you fit into educational range too. You elected him.

malfeas99
10-19-2005, 08:55 AM
http://www.depresident.com/george-c-student-bush-video.asp
sweet. I asume you fit into educational range too. You elected him.

You mean the statistical trend where more education=more republican identifying, with the notable statistical anomaly of 'graduate' education demographics?

While I should take that as a compliment, you already know (or at least should remember) that I never voted for him.

Unfortunately for you, that doesn't mean I'm going to let you get away with be a duplicitous bigot.

Word of advice: Do not attempt to impugn the intelligence of someone obviously more well-heeled in intellectual pursuits. It does not work.

MachNU
10-19-2005, 12:14 PM
^^^that was great!!

Anyways that survey you cannot prove is right. Just becuase they took a certin amount of votes doesnt mean they tookt hem all. I can ask 10 peoples opinions and only use 5 of them if 5 said what i wanted to hear!!!

Jaimecbr900
10-19-2005, 12:51 PM
Can you even put a paragraph together? So lets see whats on the chopping block. Loss of privacy: ( Patriot Act ) Women's right to control her own body: ( Soon to be gone Roe vs. Wade) The right for us not to have any one religion dictate political policy and rational thought: ( Seperation of Church and State disappearing) ..... I'll list more if you want me too but you can benifit from a little reading. Rubbie!

What's also comical is how the left always skews the truth to make it seem like the appocalypse is near. :rolleyes:

Patriot Act was initiated as a result of 9/11, not some ultra right wing agenda. To be honest, the old adage of "if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about" fits here. Personally, I'll give them blood if they want. If it means that terrorists don't get to hide in the folds of our liberal laws only to pop up and murder innocents, then I'm all for it. Only people complaining about the "Patriot Act" are Liberals and Terrorists.

Roe VS Wade is far from repealment of abortion laws. You need to read up something besides the circular Mr. Kennedy sent you to understand what truly they are arguing about. It's not abolishing the jest of the ruling.

Separation of Church and State......give me a break. The only issue this should be about is about wussified America. You don't want to utter a word, don't say it. You get "offended" by reading the Ten Commandments when you are going to court to pay the taxes on your mobile home? Then don't read it and keep walking. When a Judge MAKES you recite the Ten Commandments, then complain and bitch. When the school district changes their curriculum to include "Religion 101", then complain and bitch. Until then, simply because someone utters the words "under GOD" while doing the pledge or there's a stone monument that reads "Ten Commandments" doesn't mean you can use that as your sole argument about separation of Church and State. It has been widely shown that there are is far more concrete proof that the founders of this country didn't intend for that to mean we should all turn into a country full of Politically Correct sissies that can't wipe their own asses for fear the guy in the next stall may smell it. :rolleyes:

My :2cents:

MachNU
10-19-2005, 01:06 PM
^^^^ :goodjob:

That is what i was trying to say when everytime he made an agrument against me he only danced around never tried to defend himself. He did the most left wing liberal thing and just danced around the answer. He doesnt have any concrete proof about what ever he argues. I may onyl be 18 but i love politics and i will argue to my grave about them, but when i do i will come with evidence about what i argue, until someone proves me wrong or gives me something to sit ther and say... "Wow he might have a point!"

MachNU
10-19-2005, 05:23 PM
Generally, slightly more Americans consider themselves a Democrat than Republican. Still, about a third of Americans identified themselves as a Democratic supporter with a slightly smaller percentage as Republican. The rest, again about a third, supported a minor party, didn't know their partisan affiliation or call themselves independent.

As far as income levels go, the least well-off are overwhelmingly Democratic: Those earning less than $20,000 a year call themselves Democratic 43 percent to 18 percent and those earning $20,000 to $30,000 Democratic 37 percent to 24 percent. Those making between $30,000 and $50,000 are Democrats, 34 percent to 30 percent, while those making between $50,000 and $75,000 are more Republican, 35 percent to 29 percent. People who make $75,000 or more are strongly GOP, 39 percent to 28 percent.

Because education levels track income levels, there aren't many surprises on how educational attainment affects partisanship. Just as with income, as educational levels go up, more people are inclined to be Republican. Americans with less than a high-school education are overwhelmingly Democratic, 41 percent to 20 percent, while people who have just a high-school degree are Democrats, 34 percent to 28 percent. People with some college training tend to be Republicans, 32 percent to 31 percent while those with at least bachelor's degrees are Republican, 33 percent to 32 percent. I've seen other surveys on partisanship that show people with advanced degrees to be more Democratic than Republican, making those just bachelor's degrees more Republican if they're broken out of all those with some sort of a college degree.

LOL i just had to put this in to coinside with what this person said but.....

But when he said that most lower lower income people vote democrat...i can tell you why that is. This is not meant to afend anyone but.... if you notice most lower income people are black and hispanic....and also whites are also in there but the only reason they vote democrat is for really one reason. if you ever wathc presidental elections right before they happen you will notice that the democrats play one key card. They always sit there and speak right to the lower income people about how the rebuplicans are trying to take away there health care and welfare from them and put them out on the streets. But that in some way is true becuase most lower income people use welfare as a way for free money and not work as hard.

I mean this not to afend anyone but it is true. i will grant that there are alot of people out there who NEED welfare but there are some outt here who use it for free money and in no way try to better themselves to make more money.

just my :2cents:

slowwrx
10-19-2005, 09:07 PM
Really?

Post up your proof. And I hope it includes the 'list of IQ per state' with all the high IQ's being blue states, so we can all laugh at you when I post the snopes article debunking that, as well as any other 'evidence' you have.

Income I can possibly believe, given that most democratic voters live in places with higher costs of living, and therefore tend to have more money (not that they're really 'wealthier', when you adjust for PPP), but then again, you have the lower 40% or more income tax bracket overwhelmingly voting Democrat (gee, wonder why that is). Also, it's known that the average personal contribution to the democratic party is much higher than the average contribution to the republican party. What that tells me is that there's a lot of limousine liberals and guilty celebrities footing the bill, though that's merely supposition.

But education? Please. Outside the halls of acedemia, you'd be hard pressed to make that one stick. But it'll be fun to see you try, because you need to believe this in order to feel like an intellectually and morally superior human being, when so far all I've seen spewing out of your mouth is just another brand of collectivist fascism. No thanks.

P.S.: You're out of your freaking mind if you actually believe abortion will ever become illegal again. Even if Roe vs Wade is overturned, that's not even CLOSE to the same as it being abolished.

P.P.S.: It took me 5 minutes of looking to find this snipped from a report by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press:

Generally, slightly more Americans consider themselves a Democrat than Republican. Still, about a third of Americans identified themselves as a Democratic supporter with a slightly smaller percentage as Republican. The rest, again about a third, supported a minor party, didn't know their partisan affiliation or call themselves independent.

As far as income levels go, the least well-off are overwhelmingly Democratic: Those earning less than $20,000 a year call themselves Democratic 43 percent to 18 percent and those earning $20,000 to $30,000 Democratic 37 percent to 24 percent. Those making between $30,000 and $50,000 are Democrats, 34 percent to 30 percent, while those making between $50,000 and $75,000 are more Republican, 35 percent to 29 percent. People who make $75,000 or more are strongly GOP, 39 percent to 28 percent.

Because education levels track income levels, there aren't many surprises on how educational attainment affects partisanship. Just as with income, as educational levels go up, more people are inclined to be Republican. Americans with less than a high-school education are overwhelmingly Democratic, 41 percent to 20 percent, while people who have just a high-school degree are Democrats, 34 percent to 28 percent. People with some college training tend to be Republicans, 32 percent to 31 percent while those with at least bachelor's degrees are Republican, 33 percent to 32 percent. I've seen other surveys on partisanship that show people with advanced degrees to be more Democratic than Republican, making those just bachelor's degrees more Republican if they're broken out of all those with some sort of a college degree.

Oops, you lose, again. Life's so much easier without me here to expose your stupid self-fellating lies, isn't it? Too bad, suck it up.

That was truly awesome. Truly awesome.

I really dont feel like jumping into this little dog fight right now.

Matt

man
10-20-2005, 12:30 AM
This is not meant to afend anyone but.... if you notice most lower income people are black and hispanic....and also whites are also in there but the only reason they vote democrat is for really one reason. if you ever wathc presidental elections right before they happen you will notice that the democrats play one key card. They always sit there and speak right to the lower income people about how the rebuplicans are trying to take away there health care and welfare from them and put them out on the streets. But that in some way is true becuase most lower income people use welfare as a way for free money and not work as hard.

Being Cuban I agree with this completely. My family was one of the most respected and well known in Cuba and we left it all behind to come to America. My Grandfather went from being one of the wealthiest persons in the Cuba to one of the poorest in America, yet he still was Republican. He worked his ass off in the sugar cane fields of south Florida and earned my family a respectable life. He didn't rely on welfare or any of that. What I have realized is many of the Liberals in America are looking for the easy way out. Oh and we may associate ourselves with a president who was a C student, but you (djmaddmartin) associate yourself with people who believe either:

A) George Bush has a weather machine he uses to create hurricanes to attack his own country.

B) George Bush let the hurricane hit without response because he doesn't like black people.

C) The levees in NO were sabotaged by the government to kill blacks.

D) There is a "Mother Wheel" in outer space to which Louis Farrakhan traveled to have a conference with other black leaders about Rita.

And you call us ignorant and uneducated?

malfeas99
10-20-2005, 09:46 AM
Being Cuban I agree with this completely. My family was one of the most respected and well known in Cuba and we left it all behind to come to America. My Grandfather went from being one of the wealthiest persons in the Cuba to one of the poorest in America, yet he still was Republican. He worked his ass off in the sugar cane fields of south Florida and earned my family a respectable life. He didn't rely on welfare or any of that. What I have realized is many of the Liberals in America are looking for the easy way out. Oh and we may associate ourselves with a president who was a C student, but you (djmaddmartin) associate yourself with people who believe either:

A) George Bush has a weather machine he uses to create hurricanes to attack his own country.

B) George Bush let the hurricane hit without response because he doesn't like black people.

C) The levees in NO were sabotaged by the government to kill blacks.

D) There is a "Mother Wheel" in outer space to which Louis Farrakhan traveled to have a conference with other black leaders about Rita.

And you call us ignorant and uneducated?


I wonder why they would have left the Communist Paradise of Cuba under the Benevolent People's Leader Fidel Castro, especially if he was in one of the wealthiest and most well-known families, to toil in the evil oppressive capitalist regime of the US! Don't you know Castro gives everyone free health care and just doubled everyone's minimum wages to almost $10 a MONTH!

Sorry, I was channeling a college leftist there.

Do you ever have to slap them when they talk about how awesome Cuba is?

Also: Tell me who that is in your sig and where I can find more. QUICKLY, MACH SCHNELL

man
10-20-2005, 10:40 AM
Tell me who that is in your sig and where I can find more. QUICKLY, MACH SCHNELL

I wish I knew...

MachNU
10-20-2005, 12:26 PM
I wonder why they would have left the Communist Paradise of Cuba under the Benevolent People's Leader Fidel Castro, especially if he was in one of the wealthiest and most well-known families, to toil in the evil oppressive capitalist regime of the US! Don't you know Castro gives everyone free health care and just doubled everyone's minimum wages to almost $10 a MONTH!

Sorry, I was channeling a college leftist there.

Do you ever have to slap them when they talk about how awesome Cuba is?

Also: Tell me who that is in your sig and where I can find more. QUICKLY, MACH SCHNELL

I dont understand is this a stab at him or what? Or are you agreeing?

malfeas99
10-20-2005, 12:58 PM
I dont understand is this a stab at him or what? Or are you agreeing?

If for some reason the sarcasm didn't carry over, this statement would be key:

Sorry, I was channeling a college leftist there.

MachNU
10-20-2005, 02:08 PM
If for some reason the sarcasm didn't carry over, this statement would be key:

Sorry, I was channeling a college leftist there.

..........SHIT............. :headslap:

TIGERJC
10-23-2005, 11:17 PM
But that in some way is true becuase most lower income people use welfare as a way for free money and not work as hard.

I mean this not to afend anyone but it is true. i will grant that there are alot of people out there who NEED welfare but there are some outt here who use it for free money and in no way try to better themselves to make more money.

just my :2cents:[/QUOTE]
make up your mind, a small percentage of ppl on welfare miss use it. i cant stand to hear ppl talk about how we should take away welfare and low income housing. as a christian i would help out my fellow man, b/c i know this world is hard and not everybody can make 40k and over a year. remember if a lot of these ppl on welfare didnt get this help they would have to steal and more just to survive. our country wastes billions of dollars on bullshit projects, so i dont mind if ppl get money from the gov't, a lot of them have a tough life and this helps some what to eventually get them off welfare

TranceDJ06
10-23-2005, 11:19 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051024/ap_on_re_us/hurricane_wilma


Is the Cat. 3 Storm Wilma that is going to hit FLA, going to cause Gasoline prices to go back up? or is it going to be Bush's fault!? :confused:

man
10-23-2005, 11:39 PM
It's that damn racist weather machine

Jaimecbr900
10-24-2005, 08:27 AM
make up your mind, a small percentage of ppl on welfare miss use it. i cant stand to hear ppl talk about how we should take away welfare and low income housing. as a christian i would help out my fellow man, b/c i know this world is hard and not everybody can make 40k and over a year. remember if a lot of these ppl on welfare didnt get this help they would have to steal and more just to survive. our country wastes billions of dollars on bullshit projects, so i dont mind if ppl get money from the gov't, a lot of them have a tough life and this helps some what to eventually get them off welfare

Small percentage? You may wanna check in a different source then.

Welfare and other Gov't programs have been a cespool of abuse since it's inception. It breeds lazyness. Yes, SOME people need the programs TEMPORARILY, but there are vast overwhelming majorities that use these systems as their only means of income. Perfectly healthy people mind you. Completely able to work. They CHOOSE not to because the "benefits" they get from the Gov't are better for them than having to EARN IT working like everyone else.

I get so mad when I see these people constantly on TV shows and in print talking about how they DON'T work because they are on "disability" or have noone to "take care of the kids" so they "stay" home with them.......Only to then find out their "disability" is "back pain" or a "lazy eye" or my personal favorite "STRESS". You are permanently disabled because you have "STRESS"????? That would mean that EVERYBODY should be disabled then, huh? We all have STRESS. Most of us just DEAL with it and move on. I'm so tired of lazy people. You see a lot of them with a cell phone, but no job. $100 tennis shoes, but no job. Expensive wheels on the car, but no job. 6 kids, and no job. I'm sick of it. It's about personal responsibiliy and priorities.

This is the only country in the world that REWARDS lazyness. Of course you're not going to go look for a job when you can sit at home and watch TV all day and STILL get paid what you would if you worked. Why would you?

Put a limit on the amount of time someone can draw out w/o putting anything in. Put more people on the ground, knocking on doors, and busting people that have big screens in their living room but claim they can't work. Make people fend for themselves and not only are doing something good for them, but also for the country that is being sucked dry and putting some of it's own programs in BANKRUPTCY because of abuse.

Those are my :2cents: :2cents: :2cents: :2cents: :2cents: :2cents: .

TIGERJC
10-24-2005, 06:12 PM
go ahead and show me this data, wow ppl on welfare live a easy life. i dont see how anybody could only use welfare as thier only means of income. wow u need to go into proverty areas and stop watching tv. u need to meet ppl that are on it and see how they struggle to survive. i have seen single moms with 2 or more kids and working 2 jobs and still barely able to survive. sick and tired of ppl like u, that think they know everything and have not seen it first hand. i like how most of u so call christian-republicans act to your fellow man, but will call on god for everything else, only when it suits u

lemansz
10-24-2005, 06:15 PM
Not trying to offend but I read many of the pages on that site and I would have to say that whoever wrote that is very ignorant. Not to mention their statement about how the main idea of Republicans is tax cuts, they obviously aren't true republicans and have no understanding of what it means to be conservative. I love how it talks about Katrina like Bush sat and did nothing. He did exactly what he was supposed to do, he gave the issue over to FEMA, what else is he supposed to do? You want him to go down to NO and secure the levees himself? Again, not trying to offend just stating and opinion.



Hippies die...


W 04 biatches

Jaimecbr900
10-24-2005, 09:54 PM
go ahead and show me this data

Data? There is no data because a moocher is not going to agree they're a moocher. Where's your data come from? :rolleyes:



wow ppl on welfare live a easy life.

Yep, most do have an easy life. No job, no responsability, let the gov't take care of everything for you. Your only job is to keep having babies, not make the fathers be financially responsible, and get everything you possibly can when you haven't ever paid any money INTO the system that's supporting you. Economics 101 says that will soon bankrupt any system, let alone one that's been mismanaged as long as the day is old.


i dont see how anybody could only use welfare as thier only means of income.

Then it absolutely CAN'T be true then, huh? :rolleyes: I personally know people that divorced "on paper" in order to keep getting free hand outs. I know people that have admitted they get paid more NOT to work because they have 5 kids and nobody supporting them. Get your head out of the clouds and smell reality.


wow u need to go into proverty areas and stop watching tv.

You don't know anything about me young man. I've BEEN dirt poor. So poor, my parents could only afford a 2 bedroom apt w/no hot water for a family of 6. We NEVER got welfare. My parents were down and out, but never took a handout. So don't talk down to me like you know me or assume where I come from. I've LIVED more poverty than you could fathom, let alone live yourself. Been there, done that, and couldn't buy the T-shirt.



u need to meet ppl that are on it and see how they struggle to survive.

People struggle to survive everyday. Majority don't take handouts too. Like I mentioned above, we ate plenty of jam sandwiches in my youth. Meet hell, I've lived it. There's a huge difference between needing help for a little bit and taking advantage of the system and being a mooch. There are far more abuses than you care to admit.



i have seen single moms with 2 or more kids and working 2 jobs and still barely able to survive.

Single moms struggle everyday. Doesn't mean they have to mooch. To be perfectly honest, single moms most of the time struggle because of dead beat fathers. There are laws that protect both the children and the single moms. They should use that and make fathers be responsible for their own children. They don't want to be there to father their children, that's sad, but you can damn sure make them pay support. Sure beats having to mooch.



sick and tired of ppl like u, that think they know everything and have not seen it first hand. i like how most of u so call christian-republicans act to your fellow man, but will call on god for everything else, only when it suits u

Again, making a big mistake by ASSuming you know anything about me.

What does my religious belief have to do with anything? Fair is fair, mooching is mooching. There is a big difference between helping someone that is homeless and destitute and throwing money away on someone that has choices and keeps making the wrong ones. I have mercy and compassion for everyone, as long as they deserve it. I'm sick and tired of having to suck it up when it's my turn, only to see time and again where others take the easy way out.

Everyone that WANTS to work can. Mcdonalds is always hiring. Problem is that people make more money on welfare than WORKING for $5/hr. If you have your own business and make $10k/month and suddenly you go out of business, THAT's trouble. You ask for help until you get on your feet, fine. If you live in gov't housing for $250/mo, never had a job in your life, have 5 kids and CHOOSE NOT to make their father(s) pay for them, then you don't DESERVE to be supported by everyone else.

I've known someone that had 3 serious back surgeries, was immobile for over a year combined after those surgeries, had 2 knee surgeries requiring and additional 6 months of down time, suffers from migranes, still has back pain and knee pain to this day, in there somewhere had 2 children, and YET has NEVER ASKED NOR GOTTEN ANY HELP AT ALL. She had a boyfriend and that later became her husband supporting her the entire time like it was supposed to be done. He sucked it up and handled it. They paid for their own hospital bills w/o any insurance nor hand outs from the gov't. Her husband has never been w/o a job since he was 14 yrs old. She went back to working recently when they didn't financially need it, but thought was the right thing to do.

So, I'll give you 1 guess as to whom that is....... ;)

Again, you don't know JACK about me. In turn, I know PLENTY about having a rough time and sucking it up and dealing with it rather than being a mooch.

My :2cents:

man
10-24-2005, 10:28 PM
Amen brother, preach on!

MachNU
10-25-2005, 11:20 AM
^^^^^
^^^^^I think that was just E-Ownage 1st Class.

DAM...... :goodjob:

TIGERJC
10-25-2005, 02:13 PM
i think i will debate that comment later on, too tired right now

MachNU
10-25-2005, 03:52 PM
i think i will debate that comment later on, too tired right now

LOL you cant debate that. What you said was ignorant! People use welfare to live off of and they do jsut fine with it. They dont live the high life but they also dont jsut scrape by, they have enough to where they dont need to work!

TIGERJC
10-25-2005, 04:39 PM
wow im ignorant, so u telling me half the ppl on welfare just sit on thier ass. just wow, maybe 5%, ok lets go as high as 40%. the govt need to have more measures to cutdown on the abuse. but i know for a fact that most people that are on it are hard workers. i say they should have a limit how long they can be on it, but to say that alot of them are just plain lazy isnt true

MachNU
10-25-2005, 05:22 PM
NOT TRUE......... :eek: ......Its very dam true. I will grant you some do try to get off of it and so jsut cant help it either way but ALOT use it for free money. I have even known people who use it and literally know their abusing it. The only reason the government hasnt cracked down on it is becuase most usually jsut come up with an excuse, but most dont care if it is enough to get them through the week or month without them having to work they wont even try to get a job. But you are correct they dotn sit on there ass becuase there usually out spending the money elsewere.

Jaimecbr900
10-25-2005, 06:29 PM
wow im ignorant, so u telling me half the ppl on welfare just sit on thier ass. just wow, maybe 5%, ok lets go as high as 40%. the govt need to have more measures to cutdown on the abuse. but i know for a fact that most people that are on it are hard workers. i say they should have a limit how long they can be on it, but to say that alot of them are just plain lazy isnt true

Yep, that's what I'm saying.

But don't believe an old guy like me......here you go, young and old saying the same thing I am.....enjoy:

http://forums.importatlanta.com/showthread.php?t=27143

efman
10-25-2005, 06:42 PM
hey lets not support our leaders and try to help them lets just make shit hard on them when it's not even like they can be reelected i can not see how you bush haters think your even patriots even if you dont agree with him support america dont hate and i cant wait to see what dumb fuck hillary can do

MachNU
10-25-2005, 07:31 PM
hey lets not support our leaders and try to help them lets just make shit hard on them when it's not even like they can be reelected i can not see how you bush haters think your even patriots even if you dont agree with him support america dont hate and i cant wait to see what dumb fuck hillary can do

If hillary gets elected next election were FUCKED. Just as long as she doesnt do stupid shit like her husband who when he first had the twin towers attacked in 92 he turns around and makes a peace agreement with them. But msot liekyl she will have an assassination atempt on her life if she tries and run, and odds are it will be some texas hick or something along those lines. All i can say if she runs i would cut my nuts off before i voted for her.

djmaddmartin
10-25-2005, 08:13 PM
Explain to me the moral responsibility of the Bush administration when they go from a budget surplus to one of the biggest muti-trillion dollar deficits. Check out this unbiased data on the budget deficit for each of the US presidents and explain to me why the Bush admin. has done what it has even going against many republicans doing such. Now they are talking about cutting student loans and social services to combat Katrina's 200billion dollar cost when the truth is that it incurred only a .2 percent blip of deficit compared to the deficit which the Bush admin. has incured. ???????? Tell why your party is so great and I can show you a 10 things that show they are not. Why do you keep supporting a party that is hell bent on hurting the very supporters of its party????

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/5577/philo/fedbgt.htm

MachNU
10-25-2005, 08:46 PM
OH GOD I THOUGHT YOU WHERE GONE. Dam you jsut dont give up. Just for your information the deficit since Clinton has gone out of office and Bush has come in has gone down. But since your blaming the weather on Bush and since he is using all this money to help people (which i dont understand why the persident would want to help people) i would expect the deficit to go back up. BUT if you look at a true data chart you would see that bush has gotten the deficit to go down since he has taken office. But since i am to lazy tonight i will get you the information tommorow.

Also if you want to blame someone on the Deficit do your homework and blame EVERYONE. Every president ha caused the national deficit to go up every presdient be it rep. demo. and since hte Democrats have held the office for 35 years and the Republicans 33 this being since the end of the depression the Democrats are at a cause of 8.9% and the Republicans are at 9.1 OH MY GOD THAT MUST MEAN ITS ALL THE REPUBLICANS FAULT. Just wait until the next Democrat gets office then they will take the lead in the Deficit cause.

Hopefully next time which i hope there isnt you open your mouth to argue you take our advise and come with something better. becuase so far you been shot down at all attempts to argue with something good.

Jaimecbr900
10-25-2005, 09:17 PM
Why is it that all Bush haters attribute everything to Bush? Hurricanes, failed levees, the ENTIRE deficit that was INHERITED, yada yada.

That's so old already. Find something new. Maybe Global warming, Chinese torture, dingleberries, maybe even cavities. :rolleyes: :jerkit:

Your only "research data" comes from Bush hating leftist .coms and it's getting so predictable.

Post something original and enlightening.....thought provoking.....debate worthy. Notice your topics go off on tangents if anywhere at all. Reason? You sound like a propaganda machine. Even the regular Bush haters here aren't so biased and one sided.

Do something different. You really aint that good at what you're doing now.

MachNU
10-25-2005, 09:29 PM
Why is it that all Bush haters attribute everything to Bush? Hurricanes, failed levees, the ENTIRE deficit that was INHERITED, yada yada.

That's so old already. Find something new. Maybe Global warming, Chinese torture, dingleberries, maybe even cavities. :rolleyes: :jerkit:

Your only "research data" comes from Bush hating leftist .coms and it's getting so predictable.

Post something original and enlightening.....thought provoking.....debate worthy. Notice your topics go off on tangents if anywhere at all. Reason? You sound like a propaganda machine. Even the regular Bush haters here aren't so biased and one sided.

Do something different. You really aint that good at what you're doing now.

MUHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHA

God i love when you answer the ignorant posts. LOL :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: You get a +1 :goodjob:

djmaddmartin
10-26-2005, 06:58 PM
GONE DOWN!!!!!!!!!!!! ????????????? You clearly don't read the news. Its an undisputable fact on both sides Democrat and Republican that the deficit has gone way way up since Bush has taken office. You need to ask your fellow Republicans whats going on because apparently your not in the know. They don't deny that they have turned a budget surplus into the largest deficit since WWII. They just have reasons to justify it. Its fact not opinion. Numbers cannot be disputed as they are fact. And as for my previous statement your party went and did it. Thanks for hurting the American people again. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051026/ap_on_go_co/congress_budget_cuts

And as for me giving up, just because I stop posting to the ignorant uninformed bamboozled comments doesn't mean I gave up. I just gave up on trying to show how clueless you truely are.

OH GOD I THOUGHT YOU WHERE GONE. Dam you jsut dont give up. Just for your information the deficit since Clinton has gone out of office and Bush has come in has gone down. But since your blaming the weather on Bush and since he is using all this money to help people (which i dont understand why the persident would want to help people) i would expect the deficit to go back up. BUT if you look at a true data chart you would see that bush has gotten the deficit to go down since he has taken office. But since i am to lazy tonight i will get you the information tommorow.

Also if you want to blame someone on the Deficit do your homework and blame EVERYONE. Every president ha caused the national deficit to go up every presdient be it rep. demo. and since hte Democrats have held the office for 35 years and the Republicans 33 this being since the end of the depression the Democrats are at a cause of 8.9% and the Republicans are at 9.1 OH MY GOD THAT MUST MEAN ITS ALL THE REPUBLICANS FAULT. Just wait until the next Democrat gets office then they will take the lead in the Deficit cause.

Hopefully next time which i hope there isnt you open your mouth to argue you take our advise and come with something better. becuase so far you been shot down at all attempts to argue with something good.

MachNU
10-26-2005, 07:43 PM
CLUELESS....out of everyone who has poste dhere everyone has called you wrong and proved you wrong. But you keep coming back for more. But once again i would bet that if a Democrat was in office you would be coming up with an excuse to why there deficit is going up...but like a democrat you are you blame even nature on a republican. The national deficit between the demos and reps is only a .2% DIFFERENCE, and that is BECAUSE there has been a republican president in the office for when there is times of wars, and when there has bene some of the baddiest Hurricane Seasons, i would hope the deficit goes up becuase they have to put out all this money to help the insurance companys cover all theys people so they can get back on there feet, and keep them from going under. But from what your saying since democrats are the saviors of this great nation that if a democrat was in office during theys times that they would try and save the deficit and tell theys people who lost everything to hurricane's that they have to fend for themselves?

You my friend are like any other democrat i have ever known or meet, all you see is to blame others and not look at the big picture. Why dont you do yourself a favor and REALLY study the democratic party and see about all the "great" things they have done for there nation. Oh and also i love how you bash bush and promote democrat leadership.....BUT if i am correct it was Jimmy Carter speaking on behalf of bush during his campign, and if i am correct Carter is a Democrat to the end or in his words "I am a democrat hands down and i will never vote Republican no matter what!" So if i am rightone of the highest democratic members in there delagation, spoke on behlf of bush and stands behind him and even agrees that he is doing hte right stuff.

If i am correct i think your nothing more than a Hypocrite!

Jaimecbr900
10-26-2005, 09:28 PM
[b]GONE DOWN!!!!!!!!!!!! ????????????? You clearly don't read the news.

You read BIASED news if any at all.



Its an undisputable fact on both sides Democrat and Republican that the deficit has gone way way up since Bush has taken office.

How many wars and deadly hurricanes and leftover deficits did Clinton handle? Not a damn one. His portion of the deficit came straight from pork belly politics and paying for hookers to get his rocks off.

Typical democrat spouting. Finger pointing, but sweeping under the rug their own involvement. :jerkit:



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051026/ap_on_go_co/congress_budget_cuts



Funny how all your google quoting either has no references from which they got the data from or they interview only one side, i.e. Democrats. So of course they are going to be biased on their views.

Talk about clueless.

neontuner95
10-27-2005, 12:28 AM
interesting

djmaddmartin
10-27-2005, 10:14 AM
As usual. Pointless. Oh.. the war. He started it. Oh the huricanes... there have been bad huricaine seasons before. And no one is also considering his tax cuts that mainly target higher income brackets and corporations. So funny. You defend him as companies take away your retirement, benifits and wages facilitated by laws passed by his Republican controlled congress. Too funny. You will get it one day... or maybe not. I can criticize my party when I disagree with what they endorse, but it seems all of you are like horses with blinders on walking gladly into the shit left by the other horses in your team. Rant some more, I clearly see you are not critcal of the decisions being made that directly affect you. I have an idea, how about all those who supported Bush and voted for him fgo fight in Iraq and pay for the ground breaking deficit he will leave behind. If you live long enough. Fair is fair. I can point you to the nearest recuiting office or bank.
LOL.

Jaimecbr900
10-27-2005, 11:43 AM
As usual. Pointless.

Pointless to argue against me, yes. Glad you got that.



Oh.. the war. He started it.

You blabbed about the "deficit" and I gave you concrete proof WHY there is one and now you wanna divert to whom started it. YOU sir are a bonafide card carrying liberal Democrat of the first degree.

You start a fight, then complain because you lose. Typical Democrat fashion.



Oh the huricanes... there have been bad huricaine seasons before.

Not at the same time as a WAR num nuts. Again, Democrats point the finger and say, "OH, look at all the spending...", yet don't tell the whole story. "Spending" can be traced back to the source easily. Why is it that the liberals only mention it, but don't disclose the disclaimers????? :rolleyes:


And no one is also considering his tax cuts that mainly target higher income brackets and corporations. So funny. You defend him as companies take away your retirement, benifits and wages facilitated by laws passed by his Republican controlled congress. Too funny. You will get it one day... or maybe not.

That's actually the only point I agree with you on. So called "tax cuts" aren't really all that good at all. I support the consumption tax idea myself. So, you won't get any arguments from me on this point.



I can criticize my party when I disagree with what they endorse, but it seems all of you are like horses with blinders on walking gladly into the shit left by the other horses in your team. Rant some more, I clearly see you are not critcal of the decisions being made that directly affect you.

Open mouth, insert foot, repeat. It's getting to be a theme with you.

I just proved your little theory all wrong with my statement above. I don't follow anything with "blinders" on as proved above. So once again, you're wrong.



I have an idea, how about all those who supported Bush and voted for him fgo fight in Iraq and pay for the ground breaking deficit he will leave behind. If you live long enough. Fair is fair. I can point you to the nearest recuiting office or bank.
LOL.

I got yet another idea for YOU.......if you don't like it, buy a one-way ticket to France where you'll fit right in....... :rolleyes:

That idea sounds pretty stupid, doesn't it? Not any different than yours though. Love it or leave it. Don't you have more brain power to come up with a different rebuttal? That's a tired one. Come up with something original.

malfeas99
10-27-2005, 12:30 PM
And no one is also considering his tax cuts that mainly target higher income brackets and corporations.

I'm going to leave the rest of your babbling aside to just point out a few things about this statement:

1) The reason tax cuts mainly target higher income brackets is because the lower income brackets pay virtually no income tax at all. The top 10% pays a massively disporportionate part of their income in taxes, when compared against how much % of total income they earn. This is both the democrats and republican's fault, they have been constantly shifting the tax burden to the smallest percentage of income earners as they can. By doing this, it becomes essentially impossible to pass any meaningful tax reform.

2) Thanks to those tax cuts, the projected defecit for the next few years (before Katrina, at least, I'm not sure what that's done to it) was significantly lower than expected, because cutting taxes invigorates the economy.

3) I will say this very slowly and in all caps, so you can understand it from an economics perspective: CORPORATIONS DO NOT PAY TAXES.

That's right, you heard me. Even if when the are 'paying taxes', they're not paying taxes. You cannot tax entities, you can only tax people. Taxes on corporations have to be paid for somehow, so they are integrated into the cost of everything you buy or use. So, a tax on corporations is just another tax piled on top of the consumer.

Further research into corporate income taxation shows that the US has some of the most draconian corporate income tax structures on the planet that make it very difficult for companies based in the US to compete internationally.

For example, if a company were based in Germany, they would pay income taxes to German government on money they generated in Germany. If they had a branch in the US, they would pay income tax to the US government for the money that branch made.

If a company is based in the US, and has a branch in Germany it pays income taxes on ALL MONEY earned OUTSIDE of the country. So not only is Generic American Company paying income tax to the US government for money earned in the US and the German government for money earned in Germany, but ALSO has to pay income tax to the US government on money earned IN GERMANY.

THIS is why the company is called Daimler-Chrysler and not Chrysler-Daimler.

static
10-27-2005, 02:56 PM
Can you even put a paragraph together? So lets see whats on the chopping block. Loss of privacy: ( Patriot Act ) Women's right to control her own body: ( Soon to be gone Roe vs. Wade) The right for us not to have any one religion dictate political policy and rational thought: ( Seperation of Church and State disappearing) ..... I'll list more if you want me too but you can benifit from a little reading. Rubbie!

Who the fuck cares about making complete sentences on a message board. I don't see English 101 written on the thread title. The thread was about Bush and how your a cocksmoker and don't like him. I can agree with some aspects of how he's done a poor job but being ignorant and biased just because "he" beat out your pot smoking democrat Kerry doesn't mean you need to kill him for Katrina. That shit was Fema's fault and he just was man enough to take the shit people gave him for it. Pretty much everyone here would rather read information then Yahoo type bitching amongst children.

Jaimecbr900
10-27-2005, 03:42 PM
Wow!!!!

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one that thinks this guy is off his rocker. :goodjob:

I wonder whom he'll blame next now that the house of cards has tumbled???? ;)

MachNU
10-27-2005, 03:45 PM
LOL least hes not alwasy coming back against your post. i think he likes me i bash him then you guys rape his ass with bashes and he turns around and argues against me.

....i think he likes me.....! :eek:

:lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:

1000cckiller
10-28-2005, 11:28 AM
^^^im with yall^^^ sometimes i wonder why people like that are here in america. Its free which means " Free to live here and FREE TO LEAVE" so if you dont like our country LEAVE and we will throw missles at your yellow ass as you make your way to france or cananda.


Sorry i get alittle PISSED off when i think about people talking shit about the president when Bush is keeping your ass free from Communism and anarchy.man he can kiss my azz

1000cckiller
10-28-2005, 11:46 AM
CLUELESS....out of everyone who has poste dhere everyone has called you wrong and proved you wrong. But you keep coming back for more. But once again i would bet that if a Democrat was in office you would be coming up with an excuse to why there deficit is going up...but like a democrat you are you blame even nature on a republican. The national deficit between the demos and reps is only a .2% DIFFERENCE, and that is BECAUSE there has been a republican president in the office for when there is times of wars, and when there has bene some of the baddiest Hurricane Seasons, i would hope the deficit goes up becuase they have to put out all this money to help the insurance companys cover all theys people so they can get back on there feet, and keep them from going under. But from what your saying since democrats are the saviors of this great nation that if a democrat was in office during theys times that they would try and save the deficit and tell theys people who lost everything to hurricane's that they have to fend for themselves?

You my friend are like any other democrat i have ever known or meet, all you see is to blame others and not look at the big picture. Why dont you do yourself a favor and REALLY study the democratic party and see about all the "great" things they have done for there nation. Oh and also i love how you bash bush and promote democrat leadership.....BUT if i am correct it was Jimmy Carter speaking on behalf of bush during his campign, and if i am correct Carter is a Democrat to the end or in his words "I am a democrat hands down and i will never vote Republican no matter what!" So if i am rightone of the highest democratic members in there delagation, spoke on behlf of bush and stands behind him and even agrees that he is doing hte right stuff.

If i am correct i think your nothing more than a Hypocrite!actually no of yall have proved him wrong,and he is right you cat dispute pure numbers and fact. One we always go to war when republicans are in office but that not the point, when repblicans enter office the always do what they say they arent going to do. and democrats arent any better, but if you paid attention to facts when clition was in office we didnt go to war, and the economy was a hell of a lot better,we didnt go to war because we tried to avoid the stupid shit, unlike bush which actually was the same when his father was in office, clinton cleaned his shit up. and beside the point that when clintion let office he was one of the highest rated president ever, we wnet to war with bush for weapons of mass destruction which we never found and now the war has been switched to different reasons for us going about 20 times. basically you can disputed we went for the oil again and we have friend dying and we still dont know the real reason we went to war, al we know that we are still their now fight the war of terror which we didnt go there for in the first place. Now bush did go to the no and he could have went sooner, its fema job,but it is the president to evaluate the damage, he shot to flordia quick as hell when his brothers state got hit by the hurricane, and bush ratings has shot down to hell, even people who voted for him dissaprove of what hes doing,because its not making sense anymore.

MachNU
10-28-2005, 02:21 PM
but if you paid attention to facts when clition was in office we didnt go to war[/B

WOW you must be a relative to djmaddmartin, you talk just like him, low IQ and ignorant as hell. Now let me help you with what you said.

I agree with you even though you dont know what you are talking about. yes we did not go to war. in 1992 when terroist first attacked the Trade Towers with a car bomb, which they tried running into the lobby of the building....we didnt go to war. Clinton turned around and wanted a peace treaty with the man who attacked us. BUT when Bush came into office they tried again but since we have a "smart" person in office, he said FUCk a treaty lets go to war. Which I agree with. But if your a democrat and would be reading this you WILL disagree becuase you owuld rather be attacked roll over and make a peace treaty....hince why everyone calls democrat's Left wing Liberal Cocksuckers...becuase they rather roll over and get tea bagged.

[B]the point that when clintion let office he was one of the highest rated president

Now on the second part no agrument there i bet everyone would love the president that fucked someone in the oval office....even more so a married man. If you believe him to be a great preisdent i fell sorry fro who ever you marry becuase you wont see anything wrong in cheating on him/her!

we wnet to war with bush for weapons of mass destruction which we never found and now the war has been switched to different reasons for us going about 20 times.

LOL you didnt watch the news much during this time becuase yes we didnt find any weapons of mass destruction but we had good satelite videos of all theys mass hauling vechicles leaving facilites during the nights and do that every few days. Watch the news then watch behind the news you learn more that way!

[B]basically you can disputed we went for the oil again [/B

HAHAHAHAHAH Part about Oil!!!!!! That is the most ignorant thing i HAVE EVER SEEN. WE NEVER WENT FOR OIL. If we did why are prices so high................OH THATS RIGHT Its still high becuase the US gets most if not all of its oil from the oil fields in the guild where all those hurricans went over and shut most down. Most people dont now but the US mines most of its oil from the Gulf and from Alaska. Read dubass it helps!

And i am bored of arguing with dumbasses and ignorant fucks. Read some and come back and then talk!

1000cckiller
10-28-2005, 02:49 PM
but if you paid attention to facts when clition was in office we didnt go to war[/B

WOW you must be a relative to djmaddmartin, you talk just like him, low IQ and ignorant as hell. Now let me help you with what you said.

I agree with you even though you dont know what you are talking about. yes we did not go to war. in 1992 when terroist first attacked the Trade Towers with a car bomb, which they tried running into the lobby of the building....we didnt go to war. Clinton turned around and wanted a peace treaty with the man who attacked us. BUT when Bush came into office they tried again but since we have a "smart" person in office, he said FUCk a treaty lets go to war. Which I agree with. But if your a democrat and would be reading this you WILL disagree becuase you owuld rather be attacked roll over and make a peace treaty....hince why everyone calls democrat's Left wing Liberal Cocksuckers...becuase they rather roll over and get tea bagged.

[B]the point that when clintion let office he was one of the highest rated president

Now on the second part no agrument there i bet everyone would love the president that fucked someone in the oval office....even more so a married man. If you believe him to be a great preisdent i fell sorry fro who ever you marry becuase you wont see anything wrong in cheating on him/her!

we wnet to war with bush for weapons of mass destruction which we never found and now the war has been switched to different reasons for us going about 20 times.

LOL you didnt watch the news much during this time becuase yes we didnt find any weapons of mass destruction but we had good satelite videos of all theys mass hauling vechicles leaving facilites during the nights and do that every few days. Watch the news then watch behind the news you learn more that way!

[B]basically you can disputed we went for the oil again [/B

HAHAHAHAHAH Part about Oil!!!!!! That is the most ignorant thing i HAVE EVER SEEN. WE NEVER WENT FOR OIL. If we did why are prices so high................OH THATS RIGHT Its still high becuase the US gets most if not all of its oil from the oil fields in the guild where all those hurricans went over and shut most down. Most people dont now but the US mines most of its oil from the Gulf and from Alaska. Read dubass it helps!

And i am bored of arguing with dumbasses and ignorant fucks. Read some and come back and then talk!one name calling isnt ness.,and dumbass you actually believe the bullshit that you are typing, and second off they said they were going to attcak the towers if bush was elected in office.he was and the attacked. He was warned and did nothing, you idiot they wanted that oil over there if we get that oils there plenty in the ground compared to over here there not much so if you think we could supply a lot of oil the us cant., thats why we needed that oil and if bush could get it fisrt he would be richer, there reasons for all, and trucks leaving with bombs of mass destruction and we cant track them by this sat. that so called seen them leaving you sound like a dumb bitch just making that statment. And you fucking idiot. I am pretty much older than you so since you think you know so much why as the war changed 10x for all these different reasons, maybe we can met on day because i'll do to you what i would do to bush if i seen his ass. yor shit needs to get straight before you take sides from someone who could give two shit about your ass.He could even answer the question if he had a son would he send him to war he couldnt even answer that, he a damn coward.

MachNU
10-28-2005, 03:19 PM
one name calling isnt ness.,and dumbass you actually believe the bullshit that you are typing, and second off they said they were going to attcak the towers if bush was elected in office.he was and the attacked. He was warned and did nothing, you idiot they wanted that oil over there if we get that oils there plenty in the ground compared to over here there not much so if you think we could supply a lot of oil the us cant., thats why we needed that oil and if bush could get it fisrt he would be richer, there reasons for all, and trucks leaving with bombs of mass destruction and we cant track them by this sat. that so called seen them leaving you sound like a dumb bitch just making that statment. And you fucking idiot. I am pretty much older than you so since you think you know so much why as the war changed 10x for all these different reasons, maybe we can met on day because i'll do to you what i would do to bush if i seen his ass. yor shit needs to get straight before you take sides from someone who could give two shit about your ass.He could even answer the question if he had a son would he send him to war he couldnt even answer that, he a damn coward.

OH YM GOD YOUR A DUMBASS!!!!!

Why dont you do some research and find out that the words LARGEST oil supply is in the US!!!!! Under Arizona where the oil portection act follows to keep people form drilling is the worlds largest oil reserve. If it ever came down to where we neede doil badly its all under arizona, instead we get out 20-30% from the gulf, and about 10-20% from Alaska, and then the rest is bought from over seas. Do some research dumbshit. ALSO they did say that but they did say anything about when they attacked the towers when Clinton was in office. Whats your justification to that? Instead i am glad they attacked the US becuase we got them back 10 fold. Also i love how you say this war is pointless, but yet Alot of democrats and republicans voted to go to war and rid the terriorist of the world. I guess if you dont want to stop terrorist that must make you one. You would rather see people of our great nation get killed and not attack them. Go to fucking France where they dont fight for shit....YOU WILL fit right in there. Also about the satalite thing i guess your jsut not that smart....unless theres satelites that can see through the world from the other side of space to follow theys truck. If you were smart you would know that satelites can only be over certains areas for a certain amount of time. Now do like DJ and SHUT THE FUCK UP!

TIGERJC
10-28-2005, 03:27 PM
calm down on the name calling, debate not fight. one thing about this prz he has split this country in half. u must agree to that.

MachNU
10-28-2005, 03:33 PM
calm down on the name calling, debate not fight. one thing about this prz he has split this country in half. u must agree to that.

I agree with that to an extent but jsut pisses me off when people argue with teh dumbest dam reasons and have no proof to back it up and it they do they use biased proof. No one realizes its all about what is behind the facts to get the truth!

malfeas99
10-28-2005, 03:47 PM
actually no of yall have proved him wrong,and he is right you cat dispute pure numbers and fact. One we always go to war when republicans are in office but that not the point, when repblicans enter office the always do what they say they arent going to do. and democrats arent any better, but if you paid attention to facts when clition was in office we didnt go to war, and the economy was a hell of a lot better,we didnt go to war because we tried to avoid the stupid shit, unlike bush which actually was the same when his father was in office, clinton cleaned his shit up. and beside the point that when clintion let office he was one of the highest rated president ever, we wnet to war with bush for weapons of mass destruction which we never found and now the war has been switched to different reasons for us going about 20 times. basically you can disputed we went for the oil again and we have friend dying and we still dont know the real reason we went to war, al we know that we are still their now fight the war of terror which we didnt go there for in the first place. Now bush did go to the no and he could have went sooner, its fema job,but it is the president to evaluate the damage, he shot to flordia quick as hell when his brothers state got hit by the hurricane, and bush ratings has shot down to hell, even people who voted for him dissaprove of what hes doing,because its not making sense anymore.


I stopped reading this shit after this: but if you paid attention to facts when clition was in office we didnt go to war,

Are you a fucking retard or just don't bother to do your homework?

During the clinton administration one of our many outings was to a small, militarily weak country with no weapons of mass destruction and who wasn't a direct threat to us.

5,000-10,000 civilians died and it cost over $75 billion dollars.

Where were all the protestors?

Oh right, they were either ok with it because it was a Democrat president, or they were abysmally, terminally stupid like you and didn't even know it happened.

God, sometimes I can't even believe the shit that comes out of people's mouths. And I bet you VOTE. Christ, we are FUCKED.

malfeas99
10-28-2005, 03:52 PM
LOL you didnt watch the news much during this time becuase yes we didnt find any weapons of mass destruction but we had good satelite videos of all theys mass hauling vechicles leaving facilites during the nights and do that every few days. Watch the news then watch behind the news you learn more that way!

Actually we did find weapons of mass destruction.

An IED was created from a canister of sarin gas and set to explode near an airport. The amt of sarin inside it could have killed 50-70k people.

We found a small amount of shells filled with mustard gas. I believe they were expired past their shelf life, but show that Hussein was only paying lip service to the inspections and requirements of his surrender in the first gulf war.

Then there's the matter of the several tons of partially enriched uranium we just recently carted out of Iraq (with no small amount of protest from the UN's Nuclear watchdog).

What leftists say when they say 'no WMD's' is 'No massive stockpiles of WMD's.'

There is still a significant amount of intelligence that points to collusion with Syria on the matter, in regards to carting it there for safekeeping.

But, that's neither here nor there. We DID find WMD's, anyone who says otherwise is either a) Willfully ignorant b) massively uninformed or c) Intentionally duplicitous.

I have no patience for any of those.

TIGERJC
10-28-2005, 05:49 PM
what. this is why i dont debate on forums, most ppl dont know what thier talking about. we knew he had chemical weapons, who doesnt. anybody can get chemical weapons like that, but we were worried about nuclear weapons. and no nuclear weapons were found. show me the reports of enrich uranium, not one time have i heard that and i would like to know

MachNU
10-28-2005, 08:24 PM
Actually we did find weapons of mass destruction.

An IED was created from a canister of sarin gas and set to explode near an airport. The amt of sarin inside it could have killed 50-70k people.

We found a small amount of shells filled with mustard gas. I believe they were expired past their shelf life, but show that Hussein was only paying lip service to the inspections and requirements of his surrender in the first gulf war.

Then there's the matter of the several tons of partially enriched uranium we just recently carted out of Iraq (with no small amount of protest from the UN's Nuclear watchdog).

What leftists say when they say 'no WMD's' is 'No massive stockpiles of WMD's.'

There is still a significant amount of intelligence that points to collusion with Syria on the matter, in regards to carting it there for safekeeping.

But, that's neither here nor there. We DID find WMD's, anyone who says otherwise is either a) Willfully ignorant b) massively uninformed or c) Intentionally duplicitous.

I have no patience for any of those.

LOL i know we did i jsut meant it as that we did find "stockpiles" of WMD.

djmaddmartin
10-28-2005, 11:38 PM
I think we should let the President speak for himself straight from the elephants mouth about how much he loves our children. So Mr. President, what do you think about your party's 50 billion dollar cut taken out of (student loan subsidies, child support enforcement and aid to firms hurt by unfair trade practices) ?http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051026/ap_on_go_co/congress_budget_cutshttp://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/ATA/23445GB.jpg

malfeas99
10-29-2005, 12:20 AM
what. this is why i dont debate on forums, most ppl dont know what thier talking about. we knew he had chemical weapons, who doesnt. anybody can get chemical weapons like that, but we were worried about nuclear weapons. and no nuclear weapons were found. show me the reports of enrich uranium, not one time have i heard that and i would like to know

It's not my job to find basic information for you that is readily available. Do your own homework.

Not to mention you are completely wrong about the definition of WMD's to begin with.

TIGERJC
10-29-2005, 02:33 AM
all i have to say is back it up, but do u know how many countries have chemical weapons. wow, nuclear is what the usa made a case for. yes saddam was bad man, but thier are atleast 30 dictators like him in the world, and nuclear weapons was the only way the prez could get ppl on to iraq, not once have i heard they foung these moving chemical factories or any hard evidence of nuclear weapons

1000cckiller
10-29-2005, 08:27 AM
all i have to say is back it up, but do u know how many countries have chemical weapons. wow, nuclear is what the usa made a case for. yes saddam was bad man, but thier are atleast 30 dictators like him in the world, and nuclear weapons was the only way the prez could get ppl on to iraq, not once have i heard they foung these moving chemical factories or any hard evidence of nuclear weapons
thank you, but you friend up above said we saw them taking them away by sat. but our sat couldnt track where they took the weapons.

MachNU
10-29-2005, 10:15 AM
thank you, but you friend up above said we saw them taking them away by sat. but our sat couldnt track where they took the weapons.

Sat. can only watch a certain area for a certain amount of time!

TIGERJC
10-29-2005, 12:31 PM
u have been watching to much 24 on fox.

MachNU
10-29-2005, 12:33 PM
Dam really so we do have sat. that can see through the earth!!!! WOW i have been not heard of that yet!

man
10-29-2005, 10:44 PM
I think we should let the President speak for himself straight from the elephants mouth about how much he loves our children. So Mr. President, what do you think about your party's 50 billion dollar cut taken out of (student loan subsidies, child support enforcement and aid to firms hurt by unfair trade practices) ?
Look, I can post pics too
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/01/26/clinton.main/clinton.jpg
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman"


we knew he had chemical weapons, who doesnt. anybody can get chemical weapons like that, but we were worried about nuclear weapons. and no nuclear weapons were found. show me the reports of enrich uranium, not one time have i heard that and i would like to know
And here's the defeinition of WMD's from Wikipedia (not once did they say they were looking specifically for nuclear weapons)

Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) generally include nuclear, biological, chemical and, increasingly, radiological weapons. The term first arose in 1937 in reference to the mass destruction of Guernica, Spain, by aerial bombardment. Following the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and progressing through the Cold War, the term came to refer more to non-conventional weapons.

TIGERJC
10-29-2005, 11:15 PM
my point did we find any nuclear weapons, uuuhhhh no. thats why powel resign, b/c he was made to look like a fool

man
10-29-2005, 11:23 PM
Ok, let me put this in a way you might understand.

The United States was looking for weapons that can kill a lot of people (also known as WMDs) not specifically nuclear weapons, in fact, nuclear weapons were never mentioned.

/Nukes

MachNU
10-29-2005, 11:41 PM
Dude your going abou this the wrong way, you have to tell him a certain wa for him to understand. First find a lvl ranking republican and blame it on them, doesnt have to make since just blame a republican and he will agree with you. Remember democrats only ever want to blame someone else.

malfeas99
10-31-2005, 10:00 AM
my point did we find any nuclear weapons, uuuhhhh no. thats why powel resign, b/c he was made to look like a fool

You have no idea what you are talking about.

You are trying to hammer home a point that does not exist.

You are almost comically uninformed about the subject on which you are discoursing.

My advice: Stop now and go to the whore's lounge, where you can be a tard and actually get rep points for it.

Jaimecbr900
10-31-2005, 11:49 PM
I've been away from this discussion for a few days, but I'm glad to see some of you have been keeping things continually retarded. :rolleyes:

It's obvious SOMEONE doesn't know what a WMD is. It certainly doesn't ONLY pertain to nuclear weapons. :jerkit:

If some of you liberal democrats spent just half the time you spend googling crap to Bush bash into really trying to LEARN something that is not one-sided, this would be a much more intelligent debate. As it is, it is abundantly easy to see, even if you were Ray Charles, that liberals are sadly equipped and ill prepared for such a request.

Quit googling liberal propaganda crap and come up with something original. The good ole, "OMG, look at our deficit (but let's just conviniently overlook the fact that we are at WAR that COSTS a ton of money DAILY and all of YOUR "hero" presidential predecesors didn't have to deal with yet THEY too had a huge deficit.....what was THEIR excuse???? :jerkit: )

It's like the liberals all read the same manual...."smoke and mirrors for dummies"...... :rolleyes: Forget trying to resolve REAL problems and REAL issues. Instead, let's throw as much shit up on the wall and see what can stink up this presidency regardless of accuracy.

malfeas99
11-01-2005, 09:49 AM
I've been away from this discussion for a few days, but I'm glad to see some of you have been keeping things continually retarded. :rolleyes:

It's obvious SOMEONE doesn't know what a WMD is. It certainly doesn't ONLY pertain to nuclear weapons. :jerkit:

If some of you liberal democrats spent just half the time you spend googling crap to Bush bash into really trying to LEARN something that is not one-sided, this would be a much more intelligent debate. As it is, it is abundantly easy to see, even if you were Ray Charles, that liberals are sadly equipped and ill prepared for such a request.

Quit googling liberal propaganda crap and come up with something original. The good ole, "OMG, look at our deficit (but let's just conviniently overlook the fact that we are at WAR that COSTS a ton of money DAILY and all of YOUR "hero" presidential predecesors didn't have to deal with yet THEY too had a huge deficit.....what was THEIR excuse???? :jerkit: )

It's like the liberals all read the same manual...."smoke and mirrors for dummies"...... :rolleyes: Forget trying to resolve REAL problems and REAL issues. Instead, let's throw as much shit up on the wall and see what can stink up this presidency regardless of accuracy.

In this case, the issue really -is- two sided, and is one of the main reason why I think Bush is a total failure as a republican president.

Yes, war costs a lot of money, but the federal government has DOUBLED in size since he's been president. DOUBLED. There hasn't been a single spending bill that he's vetoed since he took office.

For a party that states their goal is reduced size and spending of the federal government, that doesn't sound very conservative to me.

Jaimecbr900
11-01-2005, 10:35 AM
In this case, the issue really -is- two sided, and is one of the main reason why I think Bush is a total failure as a republican president.

Yes, war costs a lot of money, but the federal government has DOUBLED in size since he's been president. DOUBLED. There hasn't been a single spending bill that he's vetoed since he took office.

For a party that states their goal is reduced size and spending of the federal government, that doesn't sound very conservative to me.

Yes that's possible, but how does that affect the deficit per se?

malfeas99
11-01-2005, 03:15 PM
Yes that's possible, but how does that affect the deficit per se?

Because if the government spends more money than it takes in (I'm sure you're aware that the government doesn't earn money, it takes money), then that's where you end up with a defecit. Defecits aren't necessarily a bad thing, everyone has them. The defecit is also not actually a record defecit, since the only relationship that matters in regards to a defecit is your ability to pay it off (as a percentage of GDP). The defecit is a smaller percentage of the GDP than it was 20-30 years ago, despite being a much higher actual number.

By spending like madmen, Bush and the republicans have joined hands with the Democrats and instead of saying 'we want smaller government', they're just saying 'we like huge government also, we just want to spend all your money this way, instead of that way'.

95jdmdc4
11-03-2005, 08:38 AM
Funny, how everything is Bush's fault, what is it next, a black guy in New Orleans is gonna sneeze and its Bush's fault, wtf has come about here?! Get some education, stop sucking off of welfare for generation after generation, and get a job that pays you instead of leeching off the hard working class. Liberals need to stop whining and go get with the real world! You conservatives will agree with me, but Liberals, don't even bother posting a reply about this, its not worth it, just let it go, its just my two cents.

Elrichthain
11-17-2005, 04:01 PM
^^^im with yall^^^ sometimes i wonder why people like that are here in america. Its free which means " Free to live here and FREE TO LEAVE" so if you dont like our country LEAVE and we will throw missles at your yellow ass as you make your way to france or cananda.


Sorry i get alittle PISSED off when i think about people talking shit about the president when Bush is keeping your ass free from Communism and anarchy.

haha, I had to laugh at this. This is ridiculous.

Elrichthain
11-17-2005, 04:56 PM
Wow. You guys <i>really</i> need to take a course on logic and debate. That, or stop posting. That explains it...I just looked up profiles...Trans is 18, that explains all the rhetoric he's throwing in the wind of "Liberal Cocksucker" and the obscene use of profanity to form an "argument." Let me give you some help, stop regurgitating what you hear from your friends and do some research.

If anybody "blames the weather on Bush," then that is retarded. However, I don't think that anybody is. I think they're blaming the aftermath of the disaster on his ridiculous idea of who's "qualified" to run FEMA. Or possibly his Administration's view on cutting levy funds for Pontchartrain, viewed as an emminent natural disaster, to fund his war efforts in Iraq. I believe the "Bush hates Blacks" thing you guys keep referencing are the now infamous pictures of the Black person who "looted" goods, and the White couple who "found" goods. This cannot necessarily be credited to whether or not Bush is against Blacks, or New Orleans because it is heavily Black populated, but on the other hand, it cannot be misplaced by people to say all Liberals actually <i>think</i> such a thing.

As far as the war goes, it's very debatable. I think the timing made Bush look like more of a fool than he already allows himself to look, and the matter in which he went to war, and the matter in that he treats the war. I'll leave you with something to ponder.

"Our experience with [the Bush administration] is lengthy, and both types are replete with those who are characterised by pride, arrogance, greed and misappropriation of wealth. This resemblance began after the visits of Bush Sr to the region.

At a time when some of our compatriots were dazzled by America and hoping that these visits would have an effect on our countries, all of a sudden he was affected by those monarchies and military regimes, and became envious of their remaining decades in their positions, to embezzle the public wealth of the nation without supervision or accounting.

So he took dictatorship and suppression of freedoms to his son and they named it the Patriot Act, under the pretence of fighting terrorism. In addition, Bush sanctioned the installing of sons as state governors, and didn't forget to import expertise in election fraud from the region's presidents to Florida to be made use of in moments of difficulty."

"And even more dangerous and bitter for America is that the mujahidin recently forced Bush to resort to emergency funds to continue the fight in Afghanistan and Iraq, which is evidence of the success of the bleed-until-bankruptcy plan - with Allah's permission.

It is true that this shows that al-Qaida has gained, but on the other hand, it shows that the Bush administration has also gained, something of which anyone who looks at the size of the contracts acquired by the shady Bush administration-linked mega-corporations, like Halliburton and its kind, will be convinced. And it all shows that the real loser is ... you."

"Your security is in your own hands. And every state that doesn't play with our security has automatically guaranteed its own security."

--Usama Bin Laden

p.s. I don't want any comment suggesting I'm a terrorist or sympathize with terrorism. I believe the idea people have about "terrorism" is misplaced, and the ultimate cause of our downfall as a society. Attacks are generally responses. We were responded to in an unethical way, but it wasn't due to our democracy, or their lack of democracy, or our general religious beliefs, or their fascism, or, and please God let nobody think differently, it was not because of our "Freedom." Do some research, people.

Elrichthain
11-17-2005, 04:57 PM
Haha, I guess you don't use html in here? Forgive me, I don't know how to italicize or bold or anything else.

MachNU
11-17-2005, 07:30 PM
Wow. You guys <i>really</i> need to take a course on logic and debate. That, or stop posting. That explains it...I just looked up profiles...Trans is 18, that explains all the rhetoric he's throwing in the wind of "Liberal Cocksucker" and the obscene use of profanity to form an "argument." Let me give you some help, stop regurgitating what you hear from your friends and do some research.

If anybody "blames the weather on Bush," then that is retarded. However, I don't think that anybody is. I think they're blaming the aftermath of the disaster on his ridiculous idea of who's "qualified" to run FEMA. Or possibly his Administration's view on cutting levy funds for Pontchartrain, viewed as an emminent natural disaster, to fund his war efforts in Iraq. I believe the "Bush hates Blacks" thing you guys keep referencing are the now infamous pictures of the Black person who "looted" goods, and the White couple who "found" goods. This cannot necessarily be credited to whether or not Bush is against Blacks, or New Orleans because it is heavily Black populated, but on the other hand, it cannot be misplaced by people to say all Liberals actually <i>think</i> such a thing.

As far as the war goes, it's very debatable. I think the timing made Bush look like more of a fool than he already allows himself to look, and the matter in which he went to war, and the matter in that he treats the war. I'll leave you with something to ponder.

"Our experience with [the Bush administration] is lengthy, and both types are replete with those who are characterised by pride, arrogance, greed and misappropriation of wealth. This resemblance began after the visits of Bush Sr to the region.

At a time when some of our compatriots were dazzled by America and hoping that these visits would have an effect on our countries, all of a sudden he was affected by those monarchies and military regimes, and became envious of their remaining decades in their positions, to embezzle the public wealth of the nation without supervision or accounting.

So he took dictatorship and suppression of freedoms to his son and they named it the Patriot Act, under the pretence of fighting terrorism. In addition, Bush sanctioned the installing of sons as state governors, and didn't forget to import expertise in election fraud from the region's presidents to Florida to be made use of in moments of difficulty."

"And even more dangerous and bitter for America is that the mujahidin recently forced Bush to resort to emergency funds to continue the fight in Afghanistan and Iraq, which is evidence of the success of the bleed-until-bankruptcy plan - with Allah's permission.

It is true that this shows that al-Qaida has gained, but on the other hand, it shows that the Bush administration has also gained, something of which anyone who looks at the size of the contracts acquired by the shady Bush administration-linked mega-corporations, like Halliburton and its kind, will be convinced. And it all shows that the real loser is ... you."

"Your security is in your own hands. And every state that doesn't play with our security has automatically guaranteed its own security."

--Usama Bin Laden

p.s. I don't want any comment suggesting I'm a terrorist or sympathize with terrorism. I believe the idea people have about "terrorism" is misplaced, and the ultimate cause of our downfall as a society. Attacks are generally responses. We were responded to in an unethical way, but it wasn't due to our democracy, or their lack of democracy, or our general religious beliefs, or their fascism, or, and please God let nobody think differently, it was not because of our "Freedom." Do some research, people.

My god that was the most worthless babbling i have ever read! All you did was bring back old issues to a dead thread. Also saying that i need to do my research...you need to learn to read...IF you would have read ALL the post by EVERYONE you would have seen the stupid things we are refering to where nothing more that stupid..."SARCASTIC" jokes, that DJ brought up. You my friend are a moron jsut for thinking everything wesaid was real...we where doing nothing more than joking about what some....SOME of theys left wing liberal cocksuckers in here (not all jsut a small few) where saying. Next time read, and know what you are talking about before you rag someone! :2up: :goodjob:

Elrichthain
11-18-2005, 11:32 AM
You want to sit there and call me ignorant when when i asked you to prove yourself, you did the most Demorcratic Liberal move and didnt answer the question but with a statment. A counteroffer you will. Now with the small bit of information you have me about your first defence which wa womens rights with the case of Roe vs. Wade.

So to set this off since you really dont know what a debate is i will help you. Now jsut try and follow as i "Debate" your ignorant answers with proof ( since i wont dance around the answer like you have )!

The Patriot Act since you brought it up and i dont think you have a clue what it is i will help you. ( Oh heres my back-up for it http://www.cdt.org/security/011031summary.shtml for those who want to read it themselves. ) The Patriot Act is something that does nothing more than PROTECT your rights. People complain and bitch about how there information that is sent all around the internet every waking second of the day is unprotected from people who like to steal that information. Well the Patriot Act is being made to help Internet providers strengthen there firewalls and keep hackers out so that everything you do on the internet is secure. It also is helping the FBI CIA NSA or any other top lvl organization track down cyber criminals and terroriost or jstu any other joker screwing around with there computer, to be able to trap trace them and find there signal faster to get them behind bars. So to me that is protecting my right to privacy not trying to let everyone see it.

Now you said Roe vs. Wade ( for the people who want every bit of information http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/ )

This case is nothing more than setting in motion up to today all the cases against aborations or whether it is right or wrong. That had nothing to do with womens rights, but it had to do with ethical rights. Which i cant argue against you becuase Ethical Rights is based on the person ethical decisions. But back then this lady wanted a aboration but was not given one becuase back then there had to be a direct medical reason that was at rick to the mother. But becuase the constitution was to vague the law was void becuase it didnt say yes or no to direct medical and bodily harm. So that has nothign to do with womens rights, since i the fact it is 32 years old and today things have changed.

Now onto your last few sentences where i ahve no clue what you mean since it has no meaning, but i do get what you say by Division of Church and State and that is an arguement that has been going on since Roman / Catholic times. Today it is a good thing that church adn state stay devided, but with this great nation being the land of the free, people are free to have all the religions in the world in this nation. Now since there are so many religions and so many coinsiding with each other, or course there is going to be some argument. Now i may be wrong on clarifying then tell me what you meant.

Wow. You can't believe how releived I am to hear that this isn't "real" and instead just "joking." For a minute I thought people would take these statements to heart.

Stop throwing obscenities around because it makes you look that much more unintelligent.

djmaddmartin
04-22-2009, 08:36 PM
LOL. Its funny looking back at this thread. Guess who was right? Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha. Poor Rubies. In the immortal words of Bob Marley:

"You can fool some people sometimes, But you canīt fool all the people all the time"

We stood up for our rights. Because we finally relized we had them all along.