Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

i know, i know "oh damn another anti-bush thread"
sorry...mods can merge if they wish.
but i just found this woman's words to be so moving.

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/local/11888623.htm

Mother of dead soldier vilifies Bush over war
President Ridiculed at Interfaith Rally
By Paul Richter / Lexington Herald-Leader

The president of Gold Star Families for Peace, a mother who lost a son in Iraq, criticized the United States' "illegal and unjust war" yesterday during an interfaith rally in Lexington.

Cindy Sheehan of Vacaville, Calif., accused President Bush of lying to the nation about a war which has consumed tens of billions of dollars and claimed more than 1,700 American lives -- including the life of Army Specialist Casey Austin Sheehan.

Sheehan was one of more than a dozen activists who were scheduled to speak at yesterday's anti-war rally at the Red Mile, which was organized by the Clergy and Laity Network and co-sponsored by dozens of liberal religious organizations.

Sheehan ridiculed Bush for saying that it's "hard work" comforting the widow of a soldier who's been killed in Iraq.

"Hard work is seeing your son's murder on CNN one Sunday evening while you're enjoying the last supper you'll ever truly enjoy again. Hard work is having three military officers come to your house a few hours later to confirm the aforementioned murder of your son, your first-born, your kind and gentle sweet baby. Hard work is burying your child 46 days before his 25th birthday. Hard work is holding your other three children as they lower the body of their big (brother) into the ground. Hard work is not jumping in the grave with him and having the earth cover you both," she said.

Since her son's death, Sheehan has made opposition to the Bush administration a full-time job.

"We're watching you very carefully and we're going to do everything in our power to have you impeached for misleading the American people," she said, quoting a letter she sent to the White House. "Beating a political stake in your black heart will be the fulfillment of my life ... ," she said, as the audience of 200 people cheered.

The "Freedom and Faith Bus Tour" -- which brought Sheehan to Lexington, has already visited New York, Chicago and Indianapolis. The next stops include Columbus, Pittsburgh and Cleveland.

Other speakers included state Rep. Kathy Stein, D-Lexington, Clergy and Laity Network executive director Rev. Albert Pennybacker of Lexington, Kentucky Council of Churches executive director Nancy Jo Kemper and Baptist Seminary of Kentucky Professor Glenn Hinson.

Quoting scripture and Franklin D. Roosevelt, Hinson suggested the nation is greedy and morally bankrupt and warned that America's fear of terrorism is excessive and unhealthy. Denouncing "fear that immobilizes, fear that causes you to lash out mindlessly, fear that prompts a nation to launch a preemptive strike against an imagined enemy, fear in excess," Hinson said, "Only God's love can bring that kind of fear under control."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

these words send a chill up my spine and make me want to get up and cheer:
"Beating a political stake in your black heart will be the fulfillment of my life..."

"Since her son's death, Sheehan has made opposition to the Bush administration a full-time job."

I wonder why she only started once her son died. Were all the other soldiers lives not important to her?

Of course not!

Anyhow, I like the sentiments of Rose Gentle (pseudonym?) "my son was just a piece of meat (to them)" that is certainly an impartial view

perhaps the downing street memo, lack of WMD's (you remember...the reason we went to war?) changed her view on the war? perhaps dealing with the death of her own son around the same time of these revelations, had SOME influence...maybe?

but please, dont let me stop you from attempting to discredit the mother of a dead u.s. soldier, who was lied to and mistakenly supported a war based on fixed facts, and is now furious over it. she's just unamerican. and has no right to be angry at all.

evil b!tch she is im sure

Originally posted by KidRock
"Since her son's death, Sheehan has made opposition to the Bush administration a full-time job."

I wonder why she only started once her son died. Were all the other soldiers lives not important to her?

Did you actually think before you typed this crap down, or do you just blurt out that kinda crap thoughtlessly?

Perhaps it took her son's deeath to make her realize that the war is not what she thought it was. Perhaps she doesn't want any other mother's son or daughter killed. Perhaps she just wants an explanation from Bush as to the justification of all these soldiers dying without him lying or covering up.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Did you actually think before you typed this crap down, or do you just blurt out that kinda crap thoughtlessly?

Perhaps it took her son's deeath to make her realize that the war is not what she thought it was. Perhaps she doesn't want any other mother's son or daughter killed. Perhaps she just wants an explanation from Bush as to the justification of all these soldiers dying without him lying or covering up.
Nah, I'm pretty sure she's more in it for vengeance. "Beating a political stake into your black heart..."

Ad hominem FTW.

Originally posted by PVS
perhaps the downing street memo, lack of WMD's (you remember...the reason we went to war?) changed her view on the war? perhaps dealing with the death of her own son around the same time of these revelations, had SOME influence...maybe?

but please, dont let me stop you from attempting to discredit the mother of a dead u.s. soldier, who was lied to and mistakenly supported a war based on fixed facts, and is now furious over it. she's just unamerican. and has no right to be angry at all.

evil b!tch she is im sure

She only cares now that her son is dead. I doubt she cared about the soldiers and the war before her sun died. Or else wouldn't she have been protesting the war when it was proben there are no WMDs..or when Bush even first started the war without giving the inspectors a longer chance? Nope, but now that her son has died it is all a big deal.

yes, she has no right.
what a convenient motivation that her son is dead, right?

i swear, you amaze me sometimes. before i go on about just what
i really think of you, im going to just go ahead and put you on ignore again.

goodbye

Originally posted by PVS
yes, she has no right.
what a convenient motivation that her son is dead, right?

i swear, you amaze me sometimes. before i go on about just what
i really think of you, im going to just go ahead and put you on ignore again.

goodbye

Ok.. isnt this the 5th time you said you were going to ignore me? Just do it and stop complaining.

im sorry...WHAT?

That dead soldier's mother is a selfish b-itch. He went into the military with his own free-will, he knew the risks he would be taken when he took the job but was willing to put it all on the line for his country. Most parents would be proud.

She can't even respect her dead son enough to mourn for him but understand he did what he fealt was right. Instead she tries to push the blame on president Bush, who really has about as much factor in human suffering as the weather forecast for tommorow.. He wanted to die a hero, why can't his stupid mother see that?

Originally posted by PVS
im sorry...WHAT?
You obviously viewed his post to write that up.
Originally posted by Big Evil
That dead soldier's mother is a selfish b-itch. He went into the military with his own free-will, he knew the risks he would be taken when he took the job but was willing to put it all on the line for his country. Most parents would be proud.

She can't even respect her dead son enough to mourn for him but understand he did what he fealt was right. Instead she tries to push the blame on president Bush, who really has about as much factor in human suffering as the weather forecast for tommorow.. He wanted to die a hero, why can't his stupid mother see that?
You are about to be flamed.

Originally posted by FeceMan
You obviously viewed his post to write that up.

You are about to be flamed.

Yep, If you are honest on this board and dont have the same pissing sorrow opinion as everyone else.. you get flamed.

Originally posted by Big Evil
That dead soldier's mother is a selfish b-itch. He went into the military with his own free-will, he knew the risks he would be taken when he took the job but was willing to put it all on the line for his country. Most parents would be proud.

She can't even respect her dead son enough to mourn for him but understand he did what he fealt was right. Instead she tries to push the blame on president Bush, who really has about as much factor in human suffering as the weather forecast for tommorow.. He wanted to die a hero, why can't his stupid mother see that?

I have to agree, it's naive to try and blame Bush for his death, when it's him who volunteered to go to war and fight, he knew the possible consequences of volunteering. Bush is just the easiest target for people who want to blame something tangible.

Originally posted by PVS
im sorry...WHAT?

What the heck?
PVS weren't YOU one of the people wondering what the point of ignore lists were when you were flaming JM on some other thread?(and on a side note I'm not sticking up for her)

Which would be okay if you were, Jackie Malfoy is like a beautiful flower. ^_^ Infact.. she reminds me of a magic card!

http://www.anycraze.com/images/products/magic/mc00003.jpg

Originally posted by Echuu
What the heck?
PVS weren't YOU one of the people wondering what the point of ignore lists were when you were flaming JM on some other thread?(and on a side note I'm not sticking up for her)

He is a hypocrit, he has proved it many times. Let him sit in his corner alone.


And also I agree with whoever said the mother is being selfish. Mourn your loss of your son, but dont blame someone else for what happened to him.

Originally posted by Big Evil
That dead soldier's mother is a selfish b-itch. He went into the military with his own free-will, he knew the risks he would be taken when he took the job but was willing to put it all on the line for his country. Most parents would be proud.

She can't even respect her dead son enough to mourn for him but understand he did what he fealt was right. Instead she tries to push the blame on president Bush, who really has about as much factor in human suffering as the weather forecast for tommorow.. He wanted to die a hero, why can't his stupid mother see that?

Ok back off NOW buddy... Have YOU ever lost a child?? Until you know that horrid wretched feeling you have NO right pasing judgement on this woman. Yes I can see why you dont like her blaming Bush for her son's death (altho I do agree with her) but that IN NO WAY gives you the right to call her a selfish b!tch... I have lost a kid.. not to war mind you, but I know what it feels like.. if its being selfish to want her son to be here with her rather than another statistic then I am sure she would say :guilty as charged' .. The woman is neither a b!tch nor stupid.. she is in pain with grief and mourning a part of herself that was lost. Go get some humanity and compassion before you spout your 'i'm such a badass behind my PC' rhetoric... I would friggin LOVE to see you say this to this woman's face.. first of all because you would never in a million years have the balls to do it and secondly just to see her tear into you IF you said boo to her... It must be nice to live in a world where everything is so cut & dry.. too bad the majority of us ( at least those with an ounce of intelligence) have to deal with the consequences of the words and actions of the mindless such as yourself...

bilb relax, as annoying as some of his commentary can be, Big Evil only says the stuff he says to get a reaction, don't bite.



Originally posted by KidRock
And also I agree with whoever said the mother is being selfish. Mourn your loss of your son, but dont blame someone else for what happened to him.

Well, her son would not have been in Iraq if Bush hadn't invaded Iraq for whatever his reason of the moment is. I don't think this woman was so naive as to think that her son might no die during his service in the military. I would think that she is angry that her son died in a very questionable war that was put into motion for very questionable reasons.

And you know what, the woman's son got killed, if she wants to be a ittle selfish, she's entitled.

Fair Points and well said Kharma Dog, I know you hate in thread pats on the back but you deserve it for that post.

the woman has every right to be aggrieved with the Bush administration if thats who she chooses to blame

its not the the opinion i object to...its the way the certain political and media powers pounce on it to support their own political agenda and use it merely as a tool for attacking the administration

i have seen an interview with a father who lost his son in iraq and still fully supports the war...

my question would be why does that get sidelined when the opposite opinion gets full media coverage?

Originally posted by KharmaDog
bilb relax, as annoying as some of his commentary can be, Big Evil only says the stuff he says to get a reaction, don't bite.





Well, her son would not have been in Iraq if Bush hadn't invaded Iraq for whatever his reason of the moment is. I don't think this woman was so naive as to think that her son might no die during his service in the military. I would think that she is angry that her son died in a very questionable war that was put into motion for very questionable reasons.

And you know what, the woman's son got killed, if she wants to be a ittle selfish, she's entitled.

iknow Kharma.. and thanks.. I generally try NOT to bite at such idiocy but this one just flew all over me. Until you have lost a child you have NO idea what its like.. and i agree she is entitled to a bit of selfishness

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Well, her son would not have been in Iraq if Bush hadn't invaded Iraq for whatever his reason of the moment is.
No, he just would've died in some other war.
Or from some weapon accident.
Or from some mishap whilst doing his job.

Working for the military is DANGEROUS work. He knew that when he enlisted, he took the responsibility. So yes, I'd say it to the woman's face "you're a selfish b-itch". Because that was HIS life, and HIS descision. I would think you idiots would understand considering you seem to think it's okay to suck a baby out of a tube. You're expers in killing children. But then, that's a differant discussion isn't it?

The fact of the matter is he knew the risks and was willing to do it. So his mother should respect her son enough to grim and bare the loss. Yes it's tragic, but people die. We all will have to face it eventualy. And wouldn't you rather die a hero then on the toilet eating a ham sandwhich?

Becoming a soldier and expecting not to die, is like hireing a hooker and expecting not to get an STD. It's nobody's fault for you own, and no-one should, nor has to take the blame for your own mistakes. Period.

Originally posted by Big Evil
No, he just would've died in some other war.
Or from some weapon accident.
Or from some mishap whilst doing his job.

Working for the military is DANGEROUS work. He knew that when he enlisted, he took the responsibility. So yes, I'd say it to the woman's face "you're a selfish b-itch". Because that was HIS life, and HIS descision. I would think you idiots would understand considering you seem to think it's okay to suck a baby out of a tube. You're expers in killing children. But then, that's a differant discussion isn't it?

The fact of the matter is he knew the risks and was willing to do it. So his mother should respect her son enough to grim and bare the loss. Yes it's tragic, but people die. We all will have to face it eventualy. And wouldn't you rather die a hero then on the toilet eating a ham sandwhich?

Becoming a soldier and expecting not to die, is like hireing a hooker and expecting not to get an STD. It's nobody's fault for you own, and no-one should, nor has to take the blame for your own mistakes. Period.

Then why arent YOU over there big man??

Hmm....certain posts in this thread are becoming rather personal and very sensitive. I would suggest to please watch your words towards each other. If you disagree with another member you can always debate without any flamming.

WD

Originally posted by Big Evil
No, he just would've died in some other war.
Or from some weapon accident.
Or from some mishap whilst doing his job.

Working for the military is DANGEROUS work. He knew that when he enlisted, he took the responsibility. So yes, I'd say it to the woman's face "you're a selfish b-itch". Because that was HIS life, and HIS descision. I would think you idiots would understand considering you seem to think it's okay to suck a baby out of a tube. You're expers in killing children. But then, that's a differant discussion isn't it?

The fact of the matter is he knew the risks and was willing to do it. So his mother should respect her son enough to grim and bare the loss. Yes it's tragic, but people die. We all will have to face it eventualy. And wouldn't you rather die a hero then on the toilet eating a ham sandwhich?

Becoming a soldier and expecting not to die, is like hireing a hooker and expecting not to get an STD. It's nobody's fault for you own, and no-one should, nor has to take the blame for your own mistakes. Period.

Let me try and make it simple for you, she probably is smart enough to understand soldiers get killed in wars, what she has a problem with is why this war was started, how it's being handled, and that soldiers should not of mayhaps be put in this situation in the first place.

Originally posted by WindDancer
Hmm....certain posts in this thread are becoming rather personal and very sensitive. I would suggest to please watch your words towards each other. If you disagree with another member you can always debate without any flamming.

WD

Thats cool WD.. I understand.. but is it not equally as offensive to flame the subject of a discussion such as this?? I know these are opinions & all but seriously.. the line is getting dangerously close to being stepped over in regards to this woman..

Originally posted by bilb
Then why arent YOU over there big man??
BECAUSE , I CAN'T go. Your precious goverment says I'm "mentaly unstable" and through a mental evalutation thinks that when under the stressful life of military work, am likely to be a larger threat then assistance.

So now you'tre stuck with me. \m/ \m/

Originally posted by Big Evil
BECAUSE , I CAN'T go. Your precious goverment says I'm "mentaly unstable" and through a mental evalutation thinks that when under the stressful life of military work, am likely to be a larger threat then assistance.

So now you'tre stuck with me. \m/ \m/

Kinda explains a lot

Awe, the excuse of mental instability, often used to excuse one of radical opinions, incidirary comments and to absolve one of the responsibiliyt of their actions. Touche'. Well played.

Originally posted by Big Evil
BECAUSE , I CAN'T go. Your precious goverment says I'm "mentaly unstable" and through a mental evalutation thinks that when under the stressful life of military work, am likely to be a larger threat then assistance.

So now you'tre stuck with me. \m/ \m/

OMG why am I not surprised.. well I give you this much.. at least you have the guts to admit it

Kharma, you are fast becoming my hero.. always good posts

He is doing well bilb, I agree

Originally posted by FeceMan
You obviously viewed his post to write that up.

well, it seems shitman has a hair across his ass today.

actually, lets see...i posted a thread, then he posted.
so i must be psychic to know he's trolling, right? wrong!
its called 'common sense'.

common sense also dictates that he just cant stand the idea of being
ignored, thus the multiple posts... so i guess it was a good idea after all. who would have thought that the best brand of bait for him would be apathy.

now please, run along and break someone elses balls

Originally posted by Echuu
What the heck?
PVS weren't YOU one of the people wondering what the point of ignore lists were when you were flaming JM on some other thread?(and on a side note I'm not sticking up for her)

well, i dont feel like having any more f***ing warnings while he is allowed to make a career out of baiting. so i put him on ignore. either that or i can just call him what he is and then i get banned. get it? good

Originally posted by PVS
well, i dont feel like having any more f***ing warnings while he is allowed to make a career out of baiting. so i put him on ignore. either that or i can just call him what he is and then i get banned. get it? good

Got it!

The mother's son knew what he was getting into when he became a soldier. She is making herself look foolish because of her anger over her son's death. Bush is a great president. It's fine having your own opinions and disagreeing with the president. But what she is saying is bordering on treason. If the democrats had their way we'd all be gay and doing drugs. Long live Bush!!!

Saying that you'll be happy once the president is impeached for going to war under false pretenses is treason? No it's not. Part of the point of democracy (even though the US really is more of a republic) is that if the people are unsatisfied with the government, they have the right to remove or change it. Our leaders are voted in, and they can be voted right back out. So no, what she's doing and saying don't even come CLOSE to treason.

And frankly, I'm rather disgusted with everyone here who's said that the mother is selfish for being angry over the death of her son. She IS grieving the loss of her child! People don't always grieve by being sad and crying. There are many, many ways to express grief. She has EVERY right to be angry. If she's not happy with this war, she has every right to be. Don't you think YOU'D be mad if you lost someone close to you in this war? This war that we shouldn't even BE in?

I'm having a hard time telling whether you're being sarcastic or not, Mr. Pot-smoking Wes; you need to be more obvious one way or the other.

wow...
all I have to do is look at your title, then your post...
hypocrite alert!

(aahh Pissed off Bilb! Runn!!!!)

Originally posted by Darth Revan
I'm having a hard time telling whether you're being sarcastic or not, Mr. Pot-smoking Wes; you need to be more obvious one way or the other.

You know, I was wondering that myself, but he posted something really similar in another thread so I really don't know.

Originally posted by Lana
You know, I was wondering that myself, but he posted something really similar in another thread so I really don't know.

This is truly one of the great mysteries of the universe

I was being serious. Nice sig Revan.

Originally posted by ShotgunWes
I was being serious. Nice sig Revan.

Um... Thank you?

I'm not sure I know what's going on. I think you just complained about the democrats wanting everyone to be gay and do drugs. You DO realize you have marijuana leaves everywhere, right? eek

No I said democrats would legalize drugs. It doesn't matter if they are legal or illegal, people are still going to do them. It's just that if the Dems make it legal even more people will do it. I'm fine with a few stoners, but damn if it was legal then no one would get anything done. Who'd make my tacos for me at Taco Bell?


Also, you seem like a person who is in the political know. I'd like to know your opinion on my post in the feminist rights thread.

Actually, I'd bet fewer people would do drugs were they legalized, because the government would tax them, plus the thrill of doing something illegal would be gone.

But that really has nothing to do with this thread.

If that's your logic then why do so many people still smoke cigs and drink beers?

They form a dependence on it. Marijuana is not psychologically addicting.

But once again, this has nothing to do with this thread.

I'd like to bet $100 American dollars that it IS addicting! You feel sick to your stomach when you don't smoke for prolonged periods of time.

It's not. I'm a psychology student, I know what substances are psychologically addicted and marijuana is not one.

Well, don't shoot me if I'm wrong Lana dear, but I believe that marijuana is not physically addicting... IE if you stop using it, you get cravings for it, but you won't have physical symptoms.

Yes you do. I promise. I also smoke cigs, but I have and can quit at any time. I never get addicted to them.

If I had my psych book handy I could look it up, but the chance of forming a psychological addiction to marijuana is very, very low -- you'd have to be smoking it constantly to get an addiction.

Nicotine, however, is HIGHLY addictive, and is very hard to break the addiction to.

But once again, THIS IS COMPLETELY OFF-TOPIC.

Well most people who smoke pot smoke several times a day. And you can't base all your information from books. Books are wrong sometimes and I know that whatever book you are using is wrong because it is addictive.

Well, four completely different books (all by different authors and publishers) wrong? Several times a day is NOT constantly, btw. And you're generalizing by saying that most pot smokers smoke several times a day, as you do not know most smokers you cannot make this claim and it have any credibility.

If drugs were legalized then you would have even more crack babies and welfare mothers. We waste enough money on the freeloaders who just have kids so they can get more money to get more drugs. Think about that before you spout useless shit.

Oh, and for the record, I'm not even a Democrat... Arsehole.

I never said you were dumbass.

Originally posted by ShotgunWes
If drugs were legalized then you would have even more crack babies and welfare mothers. We waste enough money on the freeloaders who just have kids so they can get more money to get more drugs. Think about that before you spout useless shit.

I disagree, I don't think we would have any more drug addicts. Plus we waste way more money trying to catch everyone involved with illegal drugs than we do on people with welfare... Not only that, but the people on welfare because they can't work because they're busy being stoned are arrested too.

What I meant by irrelevant (ooh big word) was that the drugs had nothing to do with the original topic. You sounded like Bill O'Reilly with ADD when you said that.

Don't even get me started on the gay part.

What the hell are you talking about? Did you just say that if drugs were legalized that we would have no more drug addicts?



That has to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard. If it's legal then people are going to think that it is safe to use, but then they'll get addicted and their lives will fall apart and they will tuyrn into freeloading junkies. And for the record we spend way more on welfare than we do on the illegal drug trade. That goes to show taht you have no idea what you are talking about.

how did we get from a mother's son killed in iraq to the legalisation of pot????? i'm all for legalising weed, but ffs what about the topic??

Originally posted by ShotgunWes
What the hell are you talking about? Did you just say that if drugs were legalized that we would have no more drug addicts?



That has to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard. If it's legal then people are going to think that it is safe to use, but then they'll get addicted and their lives will fall apart and they will tuyrn into freeloading junkies. And for the record we spend way more on welfare than we do on the illegal drug trade. That goes to show taht you have no idea what you are talking about.

No, I said that we wouldn't have any more than we have now. I sort of figured you would connect the dots there between my previous post (where I also clearly implied that there would still be drug addicts). Yes, we spend more money on welfare than catching druggies, but we don't spend more on welfare for druggies specifically than for catching them.

Originally posted by PVS
how did we get from a mother's son killed in iraq to the legalisation of pot????? i'm all for legalising weed, but ffs what about the topic??

ShotgunWes thought it would be cute if he claimed that all Democrats wanted you to smoke pot... And I couldn't help myself. Sorry. I'll stop.

Originally posted by PVS
how did we get from a mother's son killed in iraq to the legalisation of pot????? i'm all for legalising weed, but ffs what about the topic??

I've pointed out three times that this is completely off topic, PVS I've also been ignored each time.

And yet you also keep posting continuing the discussion under the "I said it was off topic but had to reply" ploy.
And Darth Revan maybe you should learn to read because I never said Dems wanted you to smoke weed so stop spoutting off bullshit and do something with your life.

ah, so this is the old immature lameass "derail the thread because i dont like the topic" shtick...huh? weak dude.....realy weak

Actually...

Originally posted by ShotgunWes
If the democrats had their way we'd all be gay and doing drugs. Long live Bush!!!

You didn't specifically say weed, but it was pretty close

Tricky there, trying to catch me on a meaningless technicality detective

TEH OMGZORZ, I WIN TH EARGUMENT!!!

Originally posted by KidRock
"Since her son's death, Sheehan has made opposition to the Bush administration a full-time job."

I wonder why she only started once her son died. Were all the other soldiers lives not important to her?

The thing to remember is that none of them were important to Bush. None of the Iraqi innocent people were important to Bush. Stopping Bin Laden wasn't important to Bush.

Nothing is important to Bush, BUT Bush.

The US media need to stop focusing on celebrity lifestyles (Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan etc) and just start figuring out why Bush is still running the country.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Nothing is important to Bush, BUT Bush.

...and all the powerful friends of bush. dont leave them out. he is at least loyal to SOME people. unfortunately not to 'the people'

Originally posted by PVS
he is at least loyal to SOME people.

Only because they keep him in office, if they didn't he'd f*ck them too.

A-****ing-men.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Awe, the excuse of mental instability, often used to excuse one of radical opinions, incidirary comments and to absolve one of the responsibiliyt of their actions. Touche'. Well played.
I have the same condition, you know...not mentally unstable per se, but mentally handicapped.

They give the people what they want. And Bush was elected president, so four years FTW.

Originally posted by FeceMan
I have the same condition, you know...not mentally unstable per se, but mentally handicapped.

And yet I have never heard you use it as an excuse for any of your behaviour. See what I am getting at?

And I think, that in most cases, there is a difference between a handicap and an unstability.

Originally posted by Lana
A-****ing-men.

slipping a profanity into a biblical word?

someone's goin to hell

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The US media need to stop focusing on celebrity lifestyles (Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan etc) and just start figuring out why Bush is still running the country.-AC

Bush is still running the country because 51% of the voting population elected him as their president. But while they're at it, can the media figure out why Clinton was allowed to run this country for 8 years?

Originally posted by PVS
slipping a profanity into a biblical word?

someone's goin to hell

Bite me

Originally posted by Oswald Kenobi
Bush is still running the country because 51% of the voting population elected him as their president. But while they're at it, can the media figure out why Clinton was allowed to run this country for 8 years?

Did Clinton declare war under a falsehood? No. He actually was one of the better presidents this country has had, and even managed to eliminate the deficit.

Originally posted by Oswald Kenobi
Bush is still running the country because 51% of the voting population elected him as their president. But while they're at it, can the media figure out why Clinton was allowed to run this country for 8 years?

You should be glad that Clinton was president , who else would the Bush administration have to blame for all the things that they have screwed up since they took over.

First off, who's to say that the information that started the Iraq war was false. Just because they didn't find WMD in Iraq doesn't mean that they are not there. A nuke is only 14 ft long and I'm sure that it couldn't be that hard to hide in the middle of the desert. But at the same time if we had let Saddam continue his regime more people could have died. Saddam tortured his own people, so this war is not for nothing. Think about the women over there who were treated as 3rd class citizens and the men who were forced to join the military. It's not all about WMD. Also Clinton was not one of the greatest presidents. He was good and that's it. Bush is a better Prez.

Originally posted by ShotgunWes
First off, who's to say that the information that started the Iraq war was false. Just because they didn't find WMD in Iraq doesn't mean that they are not there. A nuke is only 14 ft long and I'm sure that it couldn't be that hard to hide in the middle of the desert. But at the same time if we had let Saddam continue his regime more people could have died. Saddam tortured his own people, so this war is not for nothing. Think about the women over there who were treated as 3rd class citizens and the men who were forced to join the military. It's not all about WMD. Also Clinton was not one of the greatest presidents. He was good and that's it. Bush is a better Prez.

Have you heard of the Downing Street Memo?

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/

Originally posted by ShotgunWes
First off, who's to say that the information that started the Iraq war was false. Just because they didn't find WMD in Iraq doesn't mean that they are not there. A nuke is only 14 ft long and I'm sure that it couldn't be that hard to hide in the middle of the desert. But at the same time if we had let Saddam continue his regime more people could have died. Saddam tortured his own people, so this war is not for nothing. Think about the women over there who were treated as 3rd class citizens and the men who were forced to join the military. It's not all about WMD. Also Clinton was not one of the greatest presidents. He was good and that's it. Bush is a better Prez.

saddam killed iraqis...now we kill iraqis

saddam had his people tortured...now we have his people tortured

i guess its all ok, so long as america is behind the killing and torture, right?

Originally posted by ShotgunWes
First off, who's to say that the information that started the Iraq war was false.

Multiple nations intelligence agencies (including the U.S.). And may I refer you to the downing street memo.

Originally posted by ShotgunWes
But at the same time if we had let Saddam continue his regime more people could have died. Saddam tortured his own people, so this war is not for nothing. Think about the women over there who were treated as 3rd class citizens and the men who were forced to join the military.

Actually more people are dying per year in Iraq since Saddam was ousted, and a large portion of them have been civilians.

Originally posted by ShotgunWes
It's not all about WMD.

No it was also about terrorism, but then there was no relationship there either.

Originally posted by ShotgunWes
Also Clinton was not one of the greatest presidents. He was good and that's it. Bush is a better Prez.

Yes, your deficit is sky high, your economy is messed, you have had bills like the Patriot act passed, your social security is now in dispute, the reputaion and popularity of the United States is at an all time low, you are involved in a war that was begun under false pretenses and the incidences of global terrorism are hifher than when Clinton was ever in office. Yes, Bush is doing a bang up job.

Originally posted by Lana
Have you heard of the Downing Street Memo?

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/

20$ says he never clicks that link and refuses to even acknowledge it.



you in?

Fool's bet, people will never want to hear anything that goes against what they believe.

Besides, I've only got $10

10$ ??? your on

*grabs lana's hand and shakes it before she has a chance to pull it away*

Hey!!!



BTW, the line in your sig cracks me up......

I've read that before.
We don't kill Iraqis we kill insurgents. There is a difference. Most Iraqis will tell you that they are happier now than when Saddam was in power. It's true that Iraq might not have been the biggest threat, but it was a threat no less. Freeing the people of Iraq was worth it to me, but I can tell that you guys care not about the rest of the world.

1) The insurgents ARE Iraqis.
2) What about all the civilian deaths?
3) How would YOU know what most Iraqis say or think?
4) Iraq presented no threat to the US. Who says that Bush has the right to go poking in the problems of another country? We have enough problems here at home that need to be taken care of.

give it up lana.
he's lost in a sea of horseshit

*sighs*

I know....I hate giving up though. I'm so damn stubborn.

Originally posted by PVS
give it up lana.
he's lost in a sea of horseshit

In a cow-chip canoe without a paddle in sight.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
In a cow-chip canoe without a paddle in sight.

oh did i laugh out loud when i read that!

Originally posted by KharmaDog
In a cow-chip canoe without a paddle in sight.

Oh....man....that just cracked me up

1)Yes it's true that insurgents are Iraqis, but they can't ne included in the Iraqi civilian population. Insurgetns kill other Iraqis.
2) Most civilian deaths are caused my insurgents
3) I went ot Iraq last summer for a documentary class and I interviewed hundreds of people
4) Iraq was a threat it says so in your "treasured" downing street memo
5) You guys are full of horseshit and keep contradicting yourselves

bullshit and horseshit
horseshit is a fallacy which one who speaks it believes.
bullshit is a fallacy which one who speaks it, knows its a lie.

Originally posted by ShotgunWes
1)Yes it's true that insurgents are Iraqis, but they can't ne included in the Iraqi civilian population. Insurgetns kill other Iraqis.
horseshit
americans who commit such acts are still americans. their actions dont somehow revoke their citizenship.

Originally posted by ShotgunWes
2) Most civilian deaths are caused my insurgents
horeshit
most civilian deaths in iraq were caused by years of bombing campaigns by...*guess who* followed by famine, and disease from the fallout.

Originally posted by ShotgunWes
3) I went ot Iraq last summer for a documentary class and I interviewed hundreds of people
a shining example of pure uncut bullshit. need i say more?
Originally posted by ShotgunWes
4) Iraq was a threat it says so in your "treasured" downing street memo

indirect bullshit in that you have not read it at all, but MAYBE glazed over it at best. dont lie, because you will just look even more foolish.

Yeah, What PVS said.

Originally posted by PVS
well, i dont feel like having any more f***ing warnings while he is allowed to make a career out of baiting. so i put him on ignore. either that or i can just call him what he is and then i get banned. get it? good
Like I want you to get banned, now I think you're an even BIGGER moron.. If you actually botherd to read my posts you'd know I want to give power back to the people. So forum bannings would be something I deplore, which I do. I believe in "social justice". IE: Either you block me, people just ignore me, and treat me like shit. However I don't think neither I nor you deserves that sortof treatment. Neither one of us is that terrible of a person. I'm just a grouch, and you're just an idiot..

No I read it. And you claim to know all about how the Iraqi people are doing. But how do you know have you been there? No, everything you know is from CNN or some lunatic on the web. Go back to your stable horseboy.

Originally posted by ShotgunWes
No I read it. And you claim to know all about how the Iraqi people are doing. But how do you know have you been there? No, everything you know is from CNN or some lunatic on the web. Go back to your stable horseboy.
Me?

No not you. I'm trying to communicate with PVS, but I don't speak horseboy.

we went to war on vengence....TwinTowers.....and we went to war for oil.....Bush knew good and well that there were no WMD's .......screw bush.....she's a selfish evil person....i would hate bush to if my older brother was killed in the war..considering the fact that i already don't like him...(Bush)......I'm on the mother's side and it seems like most people are against the mother....I guess i better get ready to get flamed....Jerks...

Originally posted by ShotgunWes
No not you. I'm trying to communicate with PVS, but I don't speak horseboy.

What a fun excuse for having miserably, mind-numbingly lost an argument.

i really dont know how many times we have to cover the same points

lets look at some basic facts

what were the 3 main countries that were against the war?

China, Russia and France

what were the 3 countries who had signed illegal deals with the hussein regime to get oil rights in iraq once sanctions were lifted?

China, Russia and France

what were the 3 countries who received payments from the hussein regime as well as received under priced oil, all in order to bribe those countries into pressurizing the UN into lifting sanctions against iraq?

China ,Russia and France

whos company were siphoning off money from the oil for food programme...money that should have going to feed iraqi children?...

kojo annan...son of kofi annan...the leader of the UN

now what can be deduced from this is that it seems everybody was after iraqs oil

the difference being that France, China and Russia knew that if there was a war...they wouldn't be getting any of it...they didn't boycott the war because they thought iraq didnt have WMD...they boycotted the war because it was against their own interests

so in other words the logic is:

china, france, and russia didnt want the war because of illegal dealings with saddams regime.

therefor the war was justified.

please tell me i'm misreading you

Originally posted by AdventChild
we went to war on vengence....TwinTowers.....and we went to war for oil.....Bush knew good and well that there were no WMD's .......screw bush.....she's a selfish evil person....i would hate bush to if my older brother was killed in the war..considering the fact that i already don't like him...(Bush)......I'm on the mother's side and it seems like most people are against the mother....I guess i better get ready to get flamed....Jerks...

I'm not gonna flame you Advent...I hear you...

My only comment there would be that vengance being a motive for Iraq relating to the twin towers was very misdirected....

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.... None of the attackers were Iraqi...
The Saudis would have been the prime target for vengance if anything based on the nationality of who did what that awful day....

And I'm sure we all know by now of the Taliban/US Administrations dealings... ANd the Caspian sea pipeline neccessity for going into Afghanistan and then Iraq...

Largely though I know we are drinking from the same fountain though..

you are misreading me pvs....nowhere in my post did i attempt to justify the war...im just sick of people harping on about the "war for oil" when most of them are ignorant of what the motivations were behind the countries who didnt want war

France didn't oppose the war because they didn't want innocent iraqis killed...they didn't oppose the war because they thought there was no WMD (because at the time the UN countries were all privvy to the same albeit flawed intelligence)

they opposed the war BECAUSE THEY WANTED OIL

Originally posted by jaden101
you are misreading me pvs....nowhere in my post did i attempt to justify the war...im just sick of people harping on about the "war for oil" when most of them are ignorant of what the motivations were behind the countries who didnt want war

France didn't oppose the war because they didn't want innocent iraqis killed...they didn't oppose the war because they thought there was no WMD (because at the time the UN countries were all privvy to the same albeit flawed intelligence)

they opposed the war BECAUSE THEY WANTED OIL

and the u.s. supported the war because they wanted oil.
iraq, without oil, is but a useless sandpit to the western world.
it all boils down to oil $$$$

regardless...im just sick of hearing that the US is the big evil and are acting illegally while all the other corrupt countries and organisations escape any sort of criticism and i am merely redressing the balance with some little reported facts

and for those who are interested

http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,11882,1323967,00.html
http://www.investigatemagazine.com/apr3iraq.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4093286.stm

Originally posted by jaden101
regardless...im just sick of hearing that the US is the big evil and are acting illegally while all the other corrupt countries and organisations escape any sort of criticism and i am merely redressing the balance with some little reported facts

oh ok then i fully agree 100%
i too am so sick of people from other obviously corrupt countries
thumbing their noses at the u.s. as if they are so f***ing virginal.
we see alot of this attitude right here on this very forum, and its
sad, hypocritical, and annoying as f***.

my mistake in misreading you

Originally posted by jaden101
regardless...im just sick of hearing that the US is the big evil and are acting illegally while all the other corrupt countries and organisations escape any sort of criticism and i am merely redressing the balance with some little reported facts
Wait...if the U.S. is the 'big evil', then is Big Evil the U.S.?

Originally posted by FeceMan
Wait...if the U.S. is the 'big evil', then is Big Evil the U.S.?


Well in my Tarot readings I'm always described as The World card. So I could very well be America as a coincounce manifest being..

To think of it, I was going to yell at you to fix your signature today, but it seems that you already did.

Originally posted by FeceMan
To think of it, I was going to yell at you to fix your signature today, but it seems that you already did.
I know all your thoughts.. all your shames.. all your futures..

You sick little boy..