PDA

View Full Version : Priceless...



UltraViolet
12-14-2008, 11:40 PM
War: $580,000,000,000.00

Pair of shoes: $30.00

Gullible Americans seeing this as an attack on America: Priceless

There are some things money can't buy. For everything else, there's Fox News.

VIDEO (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7782422.stm) :thumbsup:

Chris S. (Fez)
12-15-2008, 06:17 AM
Are Iraqis really sorry Hussein is not still in power?

Matt
12-15-2008, 06:56 AM
I had no idea Bush could move so fast! Pretty decent reactions.

cresshead
12-15-2008, 07:03 AM
i was quite impressed with 'ole george'..he can dance pretty good as well you know.
he sure gets some 'bad press'...literally!

biliousfrog
12-15-2008, 07:14 AM
They don't go into details of just how offensive the act of throwing shoes at Bush was. It is quite funny but to an Iraqi, showing the soles of your shoes is very offensive, I imagine throwing them at your head is pretty bad.

I really wanted the second one to smack into Bush's smug face...ah well

UltraViolet
12-15-2008, 10:16 AM
I had no idea Bush could move so fast! Pretty decent reactions.

If Wachowski brothers only knew then...Hugo Weaving would not stand a chance to get to be an Agent ;D

JeffrySG
12-15-2008, 11:11 AM
I had no idea Bush could move so fast! Pretty decent reactions.

Exactly what I thought. :)

biliousfrog
12-15-2008, 11:30 AM
well he's pretty good at dodging, pinning him down is quite tricky too

SuperNova32
12-16-2008, 03:57 PM
as much as i disapprove of President Bush, i feel kind of sorry for him

vicrest
12-16-2008, 04:42 PM
It is quite funny .....I really wanted the second one to smack into Bush's smug face...ah well

I think that comment is sickening!

So, when the President of the US is physically attacked on foreign soil.....you think it's funny?

I don't think there's any humor there - no matter who's the POTUS.

I'd not like any attack on a US President, whether it's Bush, Obama, Clinton, or even Carter.

No one should do that to my President.....no matter what I feel about his 'politics'.

And to those of you who think it's funny......you have a serious problem.

cresshead
12-16-2008, 04:47 PM
i'm not even american [i'm english if you want to know] and found the shoe throwing incident not funny at all...what if he threw a hand grenade and your president was blown to bits?

i found pres bush response show'd him the be brave, understanding and up for a debate on it...the whole stunt backfired in my opinion...it made me feel pres bush is a cool person and very 'real' and down to earth.

Titus
12-16-2008, 05:31 PM
i'm not even american [i'm english if you want to know] and found the shoe throwing incident not funny at all...what if he threw a hand grenade and your president was blown to bits?

But he didn't. He threw a pair of shoes, nothing more.

Titus
12-16-2008, 05:33 PM
And to those of you who think it's funny......you have a serious problem.

Americans have all the right to feel angry about this situation, but the rest of the world.

faulknermano
12-16-2008, 07:42 PM
No one should do that to my President.....no matter what I feel about his 'politics'.


you'd have to admit it would be quite amusing if Saddam was your president. :D



it made me feel pres bush is a cool person and very 'real' and down to earth.


for the past 8 years in office, he's hardly been otherwise. but maybe that's what people believe is a problem, isn't it? he's a bit "real", and "down-to-earth", but, apparently, that doesn't save anyone from being a bad president. how many could use a bit of intellectual highfalutin after Bush? :D

warmiak
12-16-2008, 08:28 PM
Oh well, it shows how things have changed over there .... given the same circumstances 6 years ago, that guy, his family and most likely people who knew him ,would have been all dead by now.

Stooch
12-16-2008, 10:59 PM
And to those of you who think it's funny......you have a serious problem.
not nearly as funny as invading iraq under false pretenses...

I wonder if the reporter will end up in a Guantanamo Bay "rape room".

jin choung
12-16-2008, 11:16 PM
Oh well, it shows how things have changed over there .... given the same circumstances 6 years ago, that guy, his family and most likely people who knew him ,would have been all dead by now.

unlike now where they were probably killed years ago, very impersonally, very technologically impressively, by a bomb that probably cost more than an average iraqi family made in their lifetimes. or they were dragged away, tortured and killed by foreign fighters or sectarian fundamentalists that would never have been there in the first place if bush didn't decide to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and then let it crumble into chaos while he kicked it at the ranch.

: )

make no mistake. bush is responsible for a LOT of needlessly dead iraqis. it doesn't quite cover it but... "tsk tsk".

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

but f politics. that clip is as political as a michael bay movie....

that clip is patently hilarious for all kinds of reasons. those of you who don't think so need to loosen up and bask in the ludicrousness.

shoes are not lethal. even if they were wingtips. even if they were cleats! if someone took the time to unshod himself in order to make a point to me, i'd still duck but i'd be somewhat impressed at the same time.

also, WHO THE F throws shoes?! that's hilarious!

those puppies would be e-bay GOLD! who has them?! did he get em back or are they being held for his trial and execution at gitmo?

who throws shoes?!

clearly the secret service didn't think of that possibility. nobody reacted very quickly or urgently - less because they were caught flat footed and more because nobody in the room was armed or presented a REAL THREAT.

probably 95% of the ss job in protecting the president is "preproduction". they did their due diligence and this was just a dude hurling his hush puppies. no need for histrionics of a diving slow mo "nooooooooo" and no need to draw weapons and shoot the guy.

(alas, if even an asian housewife were in charge of bush's security, all visitors would've been shoeless and this "near tragedy" would not have occurred.)

finally, bush ducked, had the presence of mind to pull a neo "you move just like one of them" and for the second shoe, looked like he was intending on blocking it like wonder woman... how awesome is that!

nah, i lied, last one wasn't final - the guy was able to get off a SECOND SHOE! WTF?! fing quickdraw mcgraw with his oxfords man!

so even if, for some reason, you LOOoooove bush, that clip is hilarious.

anyway, a perfectly ridiculous end to a perfectly regrettable presidency that did far more to tarnish the image of the office of the president or the stature of america on the world stage than any pair of airborne shoes ever could.

jin

rakker16mm
12-16-2008, 11:36 PM
that clip is patently hilarious for all kinds of reasons. those of you who don't think so need to loosen up and bask in the ludicrousness.

:agree: Bush has done far more to disgrace the office of the presidency than the man who gave up his trusty pair of Salvatore Ferragamos not to mention his freedom.


shoes are not lethal. even if they were wingtips. even if they were cleats! if someone took the time to unshod himself in order to make a point to me, i'd still duck but i'd be somewhat impressed at the same time.

But if only he had been wearing a pair of golf cleats and walked through the dog run in the local park on the way to the press conference.


those puppies would be e-bay GOLD! who has them?! did he get em back or are they being held for his trial and execution at gitmo?

He could easily pay for his legal expenses, but I think those shoe should be bronzed...... and then he could throw them again and they would weigh a little more.

Stooch
12-16-2008, 11:59 PM
Jin, i love your shoe one liners.

as far as who throws a shoe?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGBM1q_oCZY

biliousfrog
12-17-2008, 03:41 AM
Did someone just say they felt sorry for Bush?...The guy that started an illegal war under the pretence that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 because he assumes that everyone is as stupid as him...the guy that is ordering the death of innocent people in the name of his country under the pretence that it will stop terrorism...the guy who took a thriving economy and turned it into the biggest nose-dive in history?

The only reason that I wouldn't want the shoe (or something worse) to hit him is because it would be used to stir up more hatred against the Arab world and add fuel to his fire. He is the embodiment of everything that is wrong in the world and I would pay money to see him get hit by a shoe!

hrgiger
12-17-2008, 03:50 AM
Oh lordy, it would be so weird for someone to be angry enough at Bush to want to throw their shoes at him...:rolleyes:

And who does throw a shoe? Honestly...

warmiak
12-17-2008, 04:09 AM
make no mistake. bush is responsible for a LOT of needlessly dead iraqis. it doesn't quite cover it but... "tsk tsk".

jin

Well, so is Churchill , Roosevelt , Truman, Wilson , Kennedy etc .. perhaps not Iraqis but the larger point still holds.

warmiak
12-17-2008, 04:12 AM
The guy that started an illegal war

Not really , he had received authorization from Congress and as far as legality goes , nothing else matters.

JohnMarchant
12-17-2008, 04:27 AM
Personally i dont care for him at all, wish they had hit him, he wasbe lucky its only a shoe not a grenade, took long enough for the bodyguards to react. Its only insulting to other Iraqis not to westerners anyway. He was nimble in his ducking though i will give him that.

Perks of being an extremely despised person. I wish someone would throw a whole skip full of shoes at Bordon Brown now that would be priceless :):):)

jin choung
12-17-2008, 04:30 AM
Well, so is Churchill , Roosevelt , Truman, Wilson , Kennedy etc .. perhaps not Iraqis but the larger point still holds.

sigh....

and so is hitler, stalin, nero....

what's your point? that they're all the same?

:rolleyes:

puh-leez....

jin

vicrest
12-17-2008, 04:31 AM
Did someone just say they felt sorry for Bush?...The guy that started an illegal war under the pretence that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 because he assumes that everyone is as stupid as him...the guy that is ordering the death of innocent people in the name of his country under the pretence that it will stop terrorism...the guy who took a thriving economy and turned it into the biggest nose-dive in history?

The only reason that I wouldn't want the shoe (or something worse) to hit him is because it would be used to stir up more hatred against the Arab world and add fuel to his fire. He is the embodiment of everything that is wrong in the world and I would pay money to see him get hit by a shoe!

You are uninformed or very ignorant.

Take a moment to actually learn something by reading the Act of Congress that authorized the War.

Pay close attention to the finding of CONGRESS in 1998 of the determination that there were weapons (and so you know.....1998 was BEFORE Mr. Bush was elected President.

Also note that the President was granted the power to make the determination.

The Resolution was passsed with the votes of both Dems and Reps.



October 2, 2002

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

jin choung
12-17-2008, 04:32 AM
Not really , he had received authorization from Congress and as far as legality goes , nothing else matters.

so if congress authorized the extermination of the jews, that would make it alright?

come on!

I N T E R N A T I O N A L ... L A W S ...

and things like the GENEVA CONVENTION.

last time i checked, geneva wasn't in minnesota.

jin

jin choung
12-17-2008, 04:38 AM
You are uninformed or very ignorant.

Take a moment to actually learn something by reading the Act of Congress that authorized the War.


hey we got enough of our own conservative apologists... where the f did you come from and why?

as mentioned previously, we do not live on an american planet. we are subject to laws that don't come from our congress. although idiotboy and the penguin did their damnedest to deny it.

and how DARE you argue a point about legality in defense of an administration that thumbed their noses at EVERY ASPECT OF EVEN THE NOTION OF THE RULE OF LAW?

they did what they did from gitmo to torture to wiretaps to extraordinary rendition - laws be damned!

so please, take your crank message to somewhere where it might resonate... maybe a rush limbaugh forum or somesuch? cuz around here, we may be a bit too sane for you.

jin

p.s. and please don't litter our forum with needlessly long congressional acts whose length and lack of commentary thereof points to the probability that you didn't read or understand it either. besides, if bush didn't read it, why should we?

Iain
12-17-2008, 05:19 AM
What the legality of the Iraq war has to do with anything is lost on me. The justification should surely be the real question.

The image of Bush ducking those shoes is, I think, quite a nice summation of his presidency and his worth in the eyes of the world at the end of it.
It's how I'm going to remember him.

Even his responses to this incident sounded dumb. If any American is proud or fond of him, it says as much about them as him.

jaxtone
12-17-2008, 05:24 AM
About the mournful war in Iraq I have read some interesting articles about how and why it´s so important that the conflict is either run by a dictator or a western president. As far as I know it´s all about the black jucie drained up from the inner flesh of the soil.

No matter which government that run that country, or anywhere else on this planet where natural assets can be found. It´s the same vultures that chop out each part of a country until the investors pockets is full, and unfortunally the citizens lifes is empty.

Now remember that there´s a great interest for each investment organisation to keep these wheels rolling ahead. When you think about it they are the winners irrespective of how each conflict terminates. Every country, regime, or military organisation needs a lot of cash both to start a conflict, dictature or similar. And each country needs loads of cash to re-build they´re countries after each war. This cash is not for free and of course have to be paid back with loads of interest.

I am really glad that the journalist that throwed them shoes at Mr Bush didn´t have anything more dangerous in his hands. And believe me I am a man of peace. So when talking about Mr Bush as a victim I think the scale is kind of weird.

Here´s an interesting point of view: http://angryarab.blogspot.com/

Since most of us call ourselfes humans and I can´t believe there are more things mentioned as differences that separates us, compared to what could keep us together as one holy part of this planets cycle of life. No matter what flag we live under or what political, religious leaders try to tell us, our blood has the very same color when we have to pay the price for greed and raw capitalism when it´s at it´s worst.

Insanity:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-04/24/content_436917.htm

Victim of greed:
http://www.chris-floyd.com/march/5.jpg

Loads of victimized shoes:
http://english.people.com.cn/200605/13/images/0512_C27.jpg

J.L. Kreuger Military gives his opinion:
http://complextopics.blogspot.com/2008/05/iraq-war.html

Antiwar opinion:
http://www.kirkbytimes.co.uk/antiwaritems/victim_1_iraqwar.html

Total error:
http://www.zoriah.net/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/27/zoriah_iraq_war_fallujah_suicide_bo.jpg

Tears from hell:
http://thesituationist.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/iraq-war1.jpg

Armyguy gives his story:
http://armyguy-asoldiersstory.blogspot.com/

Victim of greed:
http://www.thewe.cc/thewe_/images_5/__/us_global_attack_strategy___/girl_victim_us_uk_war_iraq.jpe
http://www.utdallas.edu/~dag053000/Rhet1302D3/child.jpg

Alone:
http://www.pacificviews.org/weblog/archives/Pictures/iraq_child.jpg

Grief:
http://huquq.com/images/2006/iraqi-civilian-victims.jpg

Lost:
http://persia1.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/kamberiraq.jpg

Frustration:
http://www.theflagbearer.com/figures-iraq_war.gif

Well... what is there more to say? Kill greed itself anywhere it´s filthy face shows up!

parm
12-17-2008, 05:58 AM
[QUOTE=Iain;796218
The image of Bush ducking those shoes is, I think, quite a nice summation of his presidency and his worth in the eyes of the world at the end of it.
It's how I'm going to remember him.[/QUOTE]

Same here!

It's the funniest thing I've seen on telly this year, made my week. If anyone wants a replay to see if they can do better. Fill your boots:D

Throw shoe at Bush Game (http://bushbash.flashgressive.de/)

edit: (Best exit since Thatcher left, I watched that all day when it happened.)

vicrest
12-17-2008, 06:37 AM
hey we got enough of our own conservative apologists... where the f did you come from and why?

as mentioned previously, we do not live on an american planet. we are subject to laws that don't come from our congress. although idiotboy and the penguin did their damnedest to deny it.

and how DARE you argue a point about legality in defense of an administration that thumbed their noses at EVERY ASPECT OF EVEN THE NOTION OF THE RULE OF LAW?

they did what they did from gitmo to torture to wiretaps to extraordinary rendition - laws be damned!

so please, take your crank message to somewhere where it might resonate... maybe a rush limbaugh forum or somesuch? cuz around here, we may be a bit too sane for you.

jin

p.s. and please don't litter our forum with needlessly long congressional acts whose length and lack of commentary thereof points to the probability that you didn't read or understand it either. besides, if bush didn't read it, why should we?

Yes, we are a nation of law.

Not the mindless wandering emotional name-calling coded profanity you posted.

I posted, not as a conservative, but rather an informed poster backed by a US Constitution, American Law, UN Resolutions cited statement of fact and legal action.

Your post reflects noting but a mindless wandering emotional name-calling coded profanity dribble.

What I posted is Law and has been read and accepted by those whose knowledge and ability to express themselves far exceeds yours.

Stooch
12-17-2008, 06:46 AM
Not really , he had received authorization from Congress and as far as legality goes , nothing else matters.

he lied so its illegal.

Stooch
12-17-2008, 06:46 AM
Yes, we are a nation of law (and if the law doesnt suit us, well just make up some new ones).

Not the mindless wandering emotional name-calling coded profanity you posted.

I posted, not as a conservative, but rather a self righteous, shoe hating, mcdonalds eating, petroleum loving, good ol country bumpkin.


I know.



What I posted is Law and has been read and accepted by those whose knowledge and ability to express themselves far exceeds yours

Yep, knowlegeable and well spoken individuals...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBm5ZSWbD14

vicrest
12-17-2008, 06:50 AM
I know.

I posted fact supported by cited law.....you did neither.

Name calling appears to be all you offer.

Kuzey
12-17-2008, 06:52 AM
Whats even more funny, in his last days in office, Bush is trying to convince us he was duped into invading Iraq and not steamrolling the process...with the help of his friends :hey:

Here's a photo I took at a rally in Melbourne for the first gulf war. I'm surprised no one saw what was to come :eek:

Kuzey

Otterman
12-17-2008, 06:53 AM
vicrest-lighten up!

Stooch-your rudeness knows no bounds, made me laugh!

vicrest
12-17-2008, 06:57 AM
he lied so its illegal.

Here are the Senators who voted for the Authorization:

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary
Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 )

Vote Number: 237 Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM

Required For Majority: 1/2

Vote Result: Joint Resolution Passed

Measure Number: H.J.Res. 114

Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Vote Counts: YEAs 77 NAYs 23

Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Alphabetical by Senator Name:

Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Campbell (R-CO), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Nay
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Corzine (D-NJ), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Nay
Gramm (R-TX), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Helms (R-NC), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Hutchinson (R-AR), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Jeffords (I-VT), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-NH), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thompson (R-TN), Yea
Thurmond (R-SC), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wellstone (D-MN), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay

Stooch
12-17-2008, 06:58 AM
I posted fact supported by cited law.....you did neither.

Name calling appears to be all you offer.

Lol. I gave you all the consideration you deserve.

vicrest
12-17-2008, 06:58 AM
vicrest-lighten up!

Stooch-your rudeness knows no bounds, made me laugh!

I posted facts.....not lies, coded profanity, or name calling.

Stooch
12-17-2008, 06:59 AM
Here are the Senators who fell for the lie and voted under false pretenses:

Vote Number: 237 Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM

Required For Majority: 1/2

Vote Result: Joint Resolution Passed

Measure Number: H.J.Res. 114

Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Vote Counts: YEAs 77 NAYs 23

Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Alphabetical by Senator Name:

Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Campbell (R-CO), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Nay
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Corzine (D-NJ), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Nay
Gramm (R-TX), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Helms (R-NC), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Hutchinson (R-AR), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Jeffords (I-VT), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-NH), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thompson (R-TN), Yea
Thurmond (R-SC), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wellstone (D-MN), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay

I know.

vicrest
12-17-2008, 07:00 AM
I know.


Congrates....you're making progress!

Now re-read and understand this:

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Stooch
12-17-2008, 07:02 AM
vicrest-lighten up!

Stooch-your rudeness knows no bounds, made me laugh!

Lol. In other words, my rudeness does not discriminate.

Stooch
12-17-2008, 07:04 AM
Congrates....you're making progress!

Now re-read and understand this:

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

now you read and understand this. you created an account in a community of educated people who are aware of the unfortunate chain of events that led us to this huge and unmitigated blunder. You will not find many allies or impress many people here. I do not envy your position and look forward for the endless fun at your expense. Maybe you should have joined an SUV or a gun enthusiast website. The people here are international and multicultural, so enjoy the diverse and copious piss that will rain upon your head. That or total silence and lack of interest...

vicrest
12-17-2008, 07:06 AM
now you read and understand this. you created an account in a community of educated people who are aware of the unfortunate chain of events that led us to this huge and unmitigated blunder. You will not find many allies or impress many people here. I do not envy your position and look forward at the endless fun at your expense.

The mindless wandering emotional name-calling coded profanity you post is noted.

Kuzey
12-17-2008, 07:08 AM
Congrates....you're making progress!

Now re-read and understand this:

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Wasn't the invasion supposed to be the very last resort....not the first and only option.

Kuzey

Cageman
12-17-2008, 07:16 AM
Wasn't the invasion supposed to be the very last resort....not the first and only option.

Kuzey

Yeah... but that was when UN was in the loop...

Stooch
12-17-2008, 07:17 AM
The mindless wandering emotional name-calling coded profanity you post is noted.

The incorrectly assembled string of adjectives in your feeble attempt at sounding intelligent is also noted.

vicrest
12-17-2008, 07:21 AM
The incorrectly assembled string of adjectives in your feeble attempt at sounding intelligent is also noted.

I only post facts while you only post the mindless wandering emotional name-calling coded profanity.

There is yet to be even one fact posted by you.

Stooch
12-17-2008, 07:27 AM
I only post facts while you only post the mindless wandering emotional name-calling coded profanity.

There is yet to be even one fact posted by you.

Fact, we are in a strategically unsound war.

Fact, the man responsible for the terrorist attacks is still at large (which by the way was CLAIMED as one of the reasons for the war).

Fact, the war was precipitated by wanton disinformation.

Fact, the president has some of the worst ratings in history.

Fact, the president is highly inept at seemingly everything he attempts.

Fact, your sentence structure is very poor for an esteemed professor who claims to be well spoken and competent.

Fact, the iraqis dont appreciate US forces in their country and are showing their displeasure by throwing shoes.

I am not sure what exactly you are trying to prove here, but justifying our presence in Iraq is a fools errand that seems to detract from the image of a learned intellectual you are trying to cultivate. The only reason to stay in Iraq now is to avoid a total collapse and a civil war that will further stain the hands of US and further destabilize the entire region.

But please, you are welcome to further "enlighten" us on the legal chain of events that lead to one of the biggest screwups in US history. As if it will somehow lighten the burden and make up for both civillian and US military deaths. In addition to the colossal toll to the US tax payers during a very fragile economic situation.

Since you are a princeton professor, may i suggest a more logical application of your undoubtedly vast intellect and maybe come up with ways to aid the American people - instead of engaging in patently useless diatribes that ultimately culminate in a pointless exchange of personal opinions.

Having said that, I look forward to regressing into infantile heckle mode because I do not see any benefits in engaging you logically.
The only possible benefit this thread can serve is to foster some light hearted dialogue about the limited humorous aspects of this incident, since any kind of serious debate will ultimately be inconsequential.

Chris S. (Fez)
12-17-2008, 07:32 AM
Bush went into Iraq for the wrong reasons but if democracy holds then maybe the bloodshed and sacrifice will be worth it for future free generations. Of course, I doubt democracy is sustainable since the citizens themselves voted in yet another Islamic theocracy. In the meantime, installing a democracy gave extremist muslims the freedom to slaughter each other over ideological minutiae and kill or drive out all the christians http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-37059920081216. It is ridiculous to blame Bush for Muslim animosities that have festered for thousands of years. Go Religion of Peace!

I am hyper relieved Bush is on his way out and will be swapped with an articulate gentleman who it seems more and more likely will rule from the middle (much to the dismay of rabid liberals). However, I believe everything Bush did he genuinely believed was 1) legal and 2) for the greater good of Americans. I also believe he is a bumbling fool and the ultimate embarrassment to America.

Also, is there really any doubt that the democrats are also culpable for the disastrous economy? Both parties played key roles in crippling the markets. Please don't forget that. We can't fix it if we are not honest about how and why it broke.

Kuzey
12-17-2008, 07:34 AM
Yeah... but that was when UN was in the loop...

Oh yes, the UN was involved at one point and won't they trying to do their best to stop the US from taking the law into their own hands.

Shame they won't more forceful.

Kuzey

vicrest
12-17-2008, 07:44 AM
Fact, we are in a strategically unsound war. Your opinion.

Fact, the man responsible for the terrorist attacks is still at large (which by the way was CLAIMED as one of the reasons for the war).The man who directed, planned and personally oversaw the 911 Attack is in Gitmo.

Fact, the war was precipitated by wanton disinformation. Your opinion.

Fact, the president has some of the worst ratings in history.Semi-fact, but so was Truman's 'ratings' but history has shown him to be correct.

Fact, the president is highly inept at seemingly everything he attempts. Your opinion.

Fact, your sentence structure is very poor for an esteemed professor who claims to be well spoken and competent. Your opinion. By the way, my English teacher would differ with your limited opinion.

Fact, the iraqis dont appreciate US forces in their country and are showing their displeasure by throwing shoes. Your opinion - one 'journalist' in Iraq speaking for 'their country' is a reach.

I am not sure what exactly you are trying to prove here, I'm proving that FACTS show how stupid some who use only mindless wandering emotional name-calling coded profanity can be made to appear.

Kuzey
12-17-2008, 07:48 AM
In the meantime, installing a democracy gave extremist muslims the freedom to slaughter each other over ideological minutiae and kill or drive out all the christians It is ridiculous to blame Bush for Muslim animosities that have festered for thousands of years. Go Religion of Peace!


Actually, I don't believe that's right. The conflict in most of the world today, can be traced back to the division of land by the victors of world war 1...for their own little empires. Before that, they mostly all lived in peace.

Kuzey

Stooch
12-17-2008, 08:08 AM
Fact, we are in a strategically unsound war. Your opinion.

FACT. The expense and overextension of our forces has placed America in a weak strategic position, unable to affect current events and straining our already weak economy. America has lost what little international support we had and demonstrated our strategic dependence on oil.

You are welcome to counter with FACTS of your own instead of dishing out opinions.



Fact, the man responsible for the terrorist attacks is still at large (which by the way was CLAIMED as one of the reasons for the war).The man who directed, planned and personally oversaw the 911 Attack is in Gitmo.

FACT. The man im talking about is Osama Bin Laden. He was the stated objective by Bush. The man who personally oversaw the 911 attack was a consolation prize to soften the abject failure of capturing the guy Bush wanted: "Dead or alive".



Fact, the war was precipitated by wanton disinformation. Your opinion.

FACT, easily verifiable by released CIA documents which cast doubt on presidents assertions.



Fact, the president is highly inept at seemingly everything he attempts. Your opinion.

FACT. The man has trouble forming sentences and operating doors. His administrative incompetence is easily verifiable by his ratings.



Fact, your sentence structure is very poor for an esteemed professor who claims to be well spoken and competent. Your opinion. By the way, my English teacher would differ with your limited opinion.]

FACT - Please, you strings of adjectives require punctuation.



Fact, the iraqis dont appreciate US forces in their country and are showing their displeasure by throwing shoes. Your opinion - one 'journalist' in Iraq speaking for 'their country' is a reach.

FACT. I am basing this on far more incidents than the shoe throwing excercize. Iraq is a multicultural nation, the SHIA may have reasons to want US there but sunnis dont. The political atmosphere is certainly nothing like it was when the US first rolled into Baghdad.



I am not sure what exactly you are trying to prove here, I'm proving that FACTS show how stupid some who use only mindless wandering emotional name-calling coded profanity can be made to appear.

I believe you either just subjected me to emotional name calling or admitted your stupidity.

FACT. carrying on with this argument will achieve exactly nothing.

vicrest
12-17-2008, 08:18 AM
FACT. carrying on with this argument will achieve exactly nothing.

Finally you have listed a FACT.

Until you put away your expressed hatred of this country with your continued rants about Iraq, nothing will be achieved.

It is OK to have your opinion.

But when that 'opinion' is shown (see the reasons why there was the authorization as expressed and passed by our Congress - Post #s 27 & 39) to be wrong and it is still maintained......that person who's expressing the 'wrongly held' opinion will achieve exactly nothing.

vicrest
12-17-2008, 08:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by vicrest
Fact, your sentence structure is very poor for an esteemed professor who claims to be well spoken and competent. Your opinion. By the way, my English teacher would differ with your limited opinion.

FACT - Please, you strings of adjectives require punctuation.


So, you're qualified in determining proper English?

Chris S. (Fez)
12-17-2008, 08:26 AM
Actually, I don't believe that's right. The conflict in most of the world today, can be traced back to the division of land by the victors of world war 1...for their own little empires. Before that, they mostly all lived in peace.

Kuzey


There is no question that conflicts are influenced by economic and political forces but I believe Islamic ideology has and will continue to play a part in the persecution of nonbelievers (I could post literally thousands of links illustrating modernday persecution of religious minorities in Muslim countries).

As for Muslim-on-Muslim violence, the ideological divide between Sunni and Shiite Muslims has inspired conflicts for centuries and, with supreme clerics on both sides fanning the flames, will likely continue: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/28/world/fg-islamic28.

The invasion and the fall of Hussein allowed a power struggle to take place, a struggle at least partly derived on ideology. Extremists leveraging old animosities surely had something to do with the civil war: http://articles.latimes.com/2007/feb/13/world/fg-samarra13

SBowie
12-17-2008, 08:32 AM
So, you're qualified in determining proper English?It is rare that I agree with Stooch, but on this point I must. From a Purdue University grammar site :



Use commas to separate two or more coordinate adjectives that describe the same noun. Be sure never to add an extra comma between the final adjective and the noun itself or to use commas with non-coordinate adjectives.

Coordinate adjectives are adjectives with equal ("co"-ordinate) status in describing the noun; neither adjective is subordinate to the other. You can decide if two adjectives in a row are coordinate by asking the following questions:

* Does the sentence make sense if the adjectives are written in reverse order?
* Does the sentence make sense if the adjectives are written with and between them?

If you answer yes to these questions, then the adjectives are coordinate and should be separated by a comma. Here are some examples of coordinate and non-coordinate adjectives:

He was a difficult, stubborn child. (coordinate)
They lived in a white frame house. (non-coordinate)
She often wore a gray wool shawl. (non-coordinate)
Your cousin has an easy, happy smile. (coordinate)
The 1) relentless, 2) powerful 3) summer sun beat down on them. (1-2 are coordinate; 2-3 are non-coordinate.)
The 1) relentless, 2) powerful, 3) oppressive sun beat down on them. (Both 1-2 and 2-3 are coordinate.)

vicrest
12-17-2008, 08:50 AM
It is rare that I agree with Stooch, but on this point I must. From a Purdue University grammar site :

When you must ignore the actual fact......attack the grammer!

vicrest
12-17-2008, 08:53 AM
It is rare that I agree with Stooch, but on this point I must. From a Purdue University grammar site :

When you must ignore the actual fact......attack the grammer!

And are you sure that in the way I used those words, they are coordinate adjectives?

SBowie
12-17-2008, 08:56 AM
I'm not attacking grammar, you, nor your other remarks. I'm just politely pointing out a fact which is relevant to a small point of contention that has been raised.

SBowie
12-17-2008, 09:11 AM
And are you sure that in the way I used those words, they are coordinate adjectives?I believe so, yes. Another test that you can use in this context is to determine whether the first of two adjectives could reasonably be considered to modify the second adjective - rather than being applied to the noun.

For example, you might write "My son has a red, runny nose due to his cold." "Red" cannot reasonably be construed as modifying "runny" in this context, so "red" and "runny" are co-ordinate. It would be incorrect to write "My son has a red runny nose due to his cold."

(One could argue that it would be acceptable to omit the comma if the 'red runny' condition was caused by a nosebleed, but even then it would likely be better to find more apt phrasing to avoid possible confusion.)

Kuzey
12-17-2008, 09:25 AM
There is no question that conflicts are influenced by economic and political forces but I believe Islamic ideology has and will continue to play a part in the persecution of nonbelievers (I could post literally thousands of links illustrating modernday persecution of religious minorities in Muslim countries).

Which as I said is a result of the aftermath of WW1. Take for instance the Jews. While they were being killed by the Christians hundreds of years ago, they were protected by the Muslim empires and played a major role in the Islamic culture and so did the Christians. Today, is a different matter, it's more political and cultural than religious.



As for Muslim-on-Muslim violence, the ideological divide between Sunni and Shiite Muslims has inspired conflicts for centuries and, with supreme clerics on both sides fanning the flames, will likely continue: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/28/world/fg-islamic28.


There are individuals or small groups that use religion to achieve their goals, but that's mostly cultural. For example, it's a crime to kill innocent people, yet there are terrorist act almost everyday. This takes place because those people are manipulating the religion for their own ends, it's not sanctioned by the religion itself. How many Muslims are there in the world, and if you think that it was a major issue then wouldn't there be a major world conflict because of it, instead of some violence here and there on a small scale. It's sad that there are these conflicts, but that's what you get when you have uneducated people in roles of religious power. Not to mention, the whole religion has been hit hard by the so called war on terror and might take many more years to recover.



The invasion and the fall of Hussein allowed a power struggle to take place, a struggle at least partly derived on ideology. Extremists leveraging old animosities surely had something to do with the civil war: http://articles.latimes.com/2007/feb/13/world/fg-samarra13

True, but again, it's the few people that are at fault not the religion, Islam has many more sects than the two you mentioned and so far they have lived in coexistence fairly peacefully. There are out breaks of violence, just like there is in any faith. That doesn't mean each side prays for the destruction of the other side, far from it.

Kuzey

Chris S. (Fez)
12-17-2008, 11:03 AM
True, but again, it's the few people that are at fault not the religion.
Kuzey

I strongly disagree, as do many former Muslims: http://www.hudsonny.org/2008/12/contemplating-islam.php

"This is not an Islamophobic prejudice I present. Muslims, like any other national group, can be either good or bad, and the best among them do not act in accordance with Islam’s political ideology, either because they are not familiar with it, or because they have deliberately progressed beyond it...

The Koran states: “Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their numbers. Allah does not guide the wrongdoers” (5:51). Is it legitimate for Christians and Jews to be concerned about this tenet?

American government officials must spend funds to interpret Arabic texts word for word, without distortion or falsification. Among other illuminating tenets they may find, is the concept of taqqia (literally, “caution, prudence, dissimulation”). It allows a Muslim to conceal his true cherished beliefs when he feels that non-Muslims around him have the upper hand, while at the same time working secretly to achieve his “noble” objective, so that he can attack them when the time is ripe."



Fortunately, the politically incorrect truths of Islam are coming out. For instance, the recently officially sanctioned Shariah courts in Britain have been deemed "biased against woman" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7783627.stm

Meanwhile, in Pakistan an "influential religious panel...questioned the concept of gender equality in Pakistani laws and described it as "impractical and against Islamic principles"."

Why are so many so quick to excuse a clearly sexist, supremist ideology? Why don't moderate muslims show up in droves to protest how their religion is used/abused by extremists?

Why do moderates blame "biased" Western media for merely reporting on these abuses. Indeed, Islamic nations in the UN have been mounting an effort to criminalize "defamation of Islam".

Fortunately, freedom of speech just found some new champions within the U.N.: http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnLH387871.html

"The United Nations should stop passing resolutions, largely promoted by Islamic countries, calling for laws against "defamation of religion", according to international experts on freedom of expression.

The four experts -- from Africa, Europe, Latin America and the United Nations itself -- said such laws were often used to shield religious leaders from criticism and to suppress religious minorities and non-believers."

The Dutch cartoonist who is in hiding says it best: "Censorship only makes the truth more convincing"

Kuzey, I humbly suggest that people like yourself (who I trust harbor the best of intentions) at least consider that concessions in the name of Islam and multiculturalism are threatening personal freedoms. Here are a couple UK related links just from today:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1094868/Mother-told-Christmas-lights--case-offend-non-Christian-neighbours.html

"Mother told to take down her Christmas lights... in case they offend her non-Christian neighbours"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1094807/Sally-Army-told-stop-rattling-collecting-tins--offend-religions.html

"After 130 years of fundraising, Sally Army told to stop rattling collecting tins because it might 'offend other religions'"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/3775702/Prison-chapel-not-to-have-a-crucifix.html

"A new prison chapel has been stopped from having a crucifix in case it offends Muslims"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/3775993/Blind-mans-guide-dog-barred-from-restaurant-for-offending-Muslims.html

"A blind man has been turned away from a fashionable Indian restaurant because his guide dog offended Muslim staff."

jin choung
12-17-2008, 11:31 AM
Not the mindless wandering emotional name-calling coded profanity you posted.

I posted, not as a conservative, but rather an informed poster backed by a US Constitution, American Law, UN Resolutions cited statement of fact and legal action.

Your post reflects noting but a mindless wandering emotional name-calling coded profanity dribble.

*yawn*

evidently you have a problem with reading comprehension as well. did i call you a conservative? read what i called you and think about what that means. k?

i also think it's hilarious that you think being called a conservative qualifies as name calling though.... i agree... but i think it's hilarious that you think so too.

and you get your indignant protest of name-calling from bill oreilly it appears?

ack.

listen newby, you must be a jr. high student and one that is not particularly adept at either thought or language. and worse, you're not even offensive enough to be entertaining. so welcome to my ignore list kid.

jin

vicrest
12-17-2008, 11:53 AM
hey we got enough of our own conservative apologists... where the f did you come from and why?

That's your level of class?

I've posted the Original Iraq Resolution and posted the Senate vote that approved it.

I have no reading problem.

But it's easy to see that there are a few here that do have the problem you refer to!

So who's saying 'Bush acted without authority'?

Not me.

And, I've expressed myself without lowering to your level of 'coded profanity'.

So add away......(in a grossly general statement)....I have a number of people around me who can't debate issues without lowering to the level you've shown. And when they realize how weak their position is, they add me to their 'ignore list'.

Some debate the issues without mindless emotion.

And recognize fact.

Sadly some don't....

Cageman
12-17-2008, 01:33 PM
Oh yes, the UN was involved at one point and won't they trying to do their best to stop the US from taking the law into their own hands.

Shame they won't more forceful.

Kuzey

I agree...

One thing though... what would happen if the members of UN opposed to USA's actions united (as far as I gathered, that would be pretty much every country except UK) and started to force the issue?

Could that lead to a third world war? I have my doubts, but thats the problem... I have doubts about it. That means that, yes... some part of me believes that such an action could lead to something far, far worse that in the end may not be worth it.

Where would this war take place? Probably not on american soil, which makes it even harder for europeans to stand up, because, most likely, they would have to fight in their bombed hometowns...AGAIN.

EDIT: I'm refering to the time before the invasion and a possible outcome of "what would have happened if..."

Anyhow, Blair was supporting Bush back then, but now I don't really know where UK stand in this...

Andyjaggy
12-17-2008, 01:54 PM
Ah this is gonna be good.

Who does throw shoes. That's hilarious, ya gotta admit that, regardless of what you think of Bush. Maybe it's offensive to people in that part of the world, but here it's rather humorous.

jin choung
12-17-2008, 01:59 PM
I agree...

One thing though... what would happen if the members of UN opposed to USA's actions united (as far as I gathered, that would be pretty much every country except UK) and started to force the issue?

Could that lead to a third world war?

there's no way THAT would have happened.

but america would have been officially rebuked by the united nations and perhaps considered a "rogue state". in trying to defeat a rogue state, they would have turned into one themselves... hah.

but that didn't and couldn't have happened.... after 9/11, no one could say anything about anything. if you're not with us, you're a commie,pinko,fascist,islamofascist,etc....

the american public was blood thirsty and frightened (very unchristian i might add) and everyone including heads of state and the members of our own cowardly congress and even more cowardly media just rolled over.

it's been an interesting thing to see the stupidity and mass hysteria play out right before my eyes. good thing to know.

jin

Stooch
12-17-2008, 02:13 PM
Double time!

cant touch this!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTIDXBQA14g

and some matrix style

http://a-shoe.ytmnd.com/

Stooch
12-17-2008, 02:45 PM
When you must ignore the actual fact......attack the grammer!

dont you mean grammar my esteemed and well spoken professor?

Kuzey
12-17-2008, 02:54 PM
I strongly disagree, as do many former Muslims: http://www.hudsonny.org/2008/12/contemplating-islam.php

"This is not an Islamophobic prejudice I present. Muslims, like any other national group, can be either good or bad, and the best among them do not act in accordance with Islam’s political ideology, either because they are not familiar with it, or because they have deliberately progressed beyond it...

The Koran states: “Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their numbers. Allah does not guide the wrongdoers” (5:51). Is it legitimate for Christians and Jews to be concerned about this tenet?


I did a search for that quote and found it interesting, here's one link you should read:
http://de.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080523002612AA0Iung

Here's one quote from it:

It does not tear down Christianity if it did then why would Muslim men be permitted to marry christian and Jewish women (women of the books). You have to remember that these are translations and in Arabic one word can be a whole sentence in another language. There are many things lost in translation as it where. The first verse you refer to you have slightly incorrect.
5;51 Believers take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their number. God does not guide the wrongdoers.

It is simply referring to them trying to convert you. Not to follow them. For God does not guide them as they are doing wrong. That wrong being not following Gods final revelations and not believing that Muhammad (pbuh) is his last messenger. It does not state hate them or kill them does it? My mother is a christian am i according to you to not living in peace with my mother? Of course not.




American government officials must spend funds to interpret Arabic texts word for word, without distortion or falsification. Among other illuminating tenets they may find, is the concept of taqqia (literally, “caution, prudence, dissimulation”). It allows a Muslim to conceal his true cherished beliefs when he feels that non-Muslims around him have the upper hand, while at the same time working secretly to achieve his “noble” objective, so that he can attack them when the time is ripe."


I wouldn't trust anything the American government interprets and you should have learned not to as well by now :)

The Hudson Institute seems to be nothing more than a right wing think thank, wasn't that one of the reasons we got into the mess in Iraq.

The Hudson Institute (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1480.html)





Fortunately, the politically incorrect truths of Islam are coming out. For instance, the recently officially sanctioned Shariah courts in Britain have been deemed "biased against woman" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7783627.stm

Meanwhile, in Pakistan an "influential religious panel...questioned the concept of gender equality in Pakistani laws and described it as "impractical and against Islamic principles"."


Women are pretty much biased against no matter where you go, nothing new there. I welcome a woman's movement in Islam like that in the west, even though it hasn't reached it's goal of true equality.




Why are so many so quick to excuse a clearly sexist, supremist ideology? Why don't moderate muslims show up in droves to protest how their religion is used/abused by extremists?


Well, that wouldn't be news worthy would it. Christians leaders and Muslims leaders always get together in friendship and even worship together on many occasions. The fact you don't see it is not my burden to prove, go talk to one of your Christian priests near you.



Why do moderates blame "biased" Western media for merely reporting on these abuses. Indeed, Islamic nations in the UN have been mounting an effort to criminalize "defamation of Islam".


If you don't know the news is biased then I can't help you.



Fortunately, freedom of speech just found some new champions within the U.N.: http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnLH387871.html

"The United Nations should stop passing resolutions, largely promoted by Islamic countries, calling for laws against "defamation of religion", according to international experts on freedom of expression.

The four experts -- from Africa, Europe, Latin America and the United Nations itself -- said such laws were often used to shield religious leaders from criticism and to suppress religious minorities and non-believers."

The Dutch cartoonist who is in hiding says it best: "Censorship only makes the truth more convincing"


The truth is that was a reaction to those cartoons, not about censorship. Those cartoons are raciest and nothing was done about it but were held up as freedom of expression. If they were about living person then they would have been sued for sure. First, you saw the large rallies and didn't like that, but then when they try to do it the western way.....you don't like that either. Some people are hard to please.



Kuzey, I humbly suggest that people like yourself (who I trust harbor the best of intentions) at least consider that concessions in the name of Islam and multiculturalism are threatening personal freedoms. Here are a couple UK related links just from today:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1094868/Mother-told-Christmas-lights--case-offend-non-Christian-neighbours.html

"Mother told to take down her Christmas lights... in case they offend her non-Christian neighbours"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1094807/Sally-Army-told-stop-rattling-collecting-tins--offend-religions.html

"After 130 years of fundraising, Sally Army told to stop rattling collecting tins because it might 'offend other religions'"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/3775702/Prison-chapel-not-to-have-a-crucifix.html

"A new prison chapel has been stopped from having a crucifix in case it offends Muslims"


Those are way too funny. That's self censorship and has nothing to do with Islam or offending people. Shouldn't the prison chapel be a non dimensional faith hall or something, so everyone who wants to use it can, not just Christians. Here in Turkey, people put up Christmas trees with lights and stana clause etc. for new years celebrations , nothing to offend here.




http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/3775993/Blind-mans-guide-dog-barred-from-restaurant-for-offending-Muslims.html

"A blind man has been turned away from a fashionable Indian restaurant because his guide dog offended Muslim staff."

That would be a civil case and it's always interesting how these things always pop up around Christmas and over blown. Those Muslim staff can always cleanse themselves before prayers anyway, I don't see the fuss....sue them.

If Islam was so bad with in fighting and what not, why were there no violence during the pilgrimage to Mecca more than a week ago. Millions of people of all races and sects and no violence to be seen anywhere. That is the religion of peace you allured to in your first post, everything is politics, national culture and local customs...not religion.


PS. Those who invaded Iraq, USA, UK, Spain and Australia were all Christian countries were they not. So, one can argue that it was a Christian crusade against Islam and directly or indirectly cost the lives of a million or more innocent Iraqis civilians. Where is your anger and rage at all the carnage your fellow folk have caused, I haven't seen you in the streets marching :hey:

Kuzey

Chris S. (Fez)
12-17-2008, 03:14 PM
Kuzey, you honestly and truely believe Islamic doctrine purely preaches peace and plays no part in inspiring the extremists?

vicrest
12-17-2008, 03:15 PM
dont you mean grammar my esteemed and well spoken professor?

Yes to my typing. (I usually have someone else do my typing - that's not my thing.)

But, still waiting you you to correct my logic.....

(I always handle my own logic - that IS my thing!)

vicrest
12-17-2008, 03:22 PM
Oh give me an F'ing break. This IS fact. They've had it ALL over the news for MANY months. The information supplied to Congress was the conclusion that the Bush administration wanted them to see. It had NONE of the concerns/questions/unverified information that the verious intelligence agencies had acquired. Perhaps if Congress had known the FACTS, we would not have gotten ourselves into that mess.

Opinion, my asss. It WAS wanton disinformation!!! :thumbsdow

Someone is not paying attention....

Read the Iraq War Resolution that was passed by Congress. (Post #27)

Pay close attention to this paragraph:

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Do you know where Bush was in 1998?

vicrest
12-17-2008, 03:37 PM
And WTF does 1998 have to do with going to war in 2001?

How many inspections were done between those two dates?

And... for someone who is not paying attention OR reading... that's not what I f'ing said. What does what you wrote have to do with providing Congress with incomplete information????

And another thing... what you wrote has NOTHING to do with the intelligence they acquired BEFORE they went to war. What you wrote was like basing intelligence we acquired yesterday and using it to go to war in 2012. It means NOTHING.

And you know where you can put your BIG RED letters.

My, my, my......why such angry tones?

If you would calm down and actually read what Congress passed, and when they passed it, you'd learn much.

Cageman
12-17-2008, 03:48 PM
Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

So... where are those weapons of mass destruction? As far as I know, they've not been discovered, hence the notion that what you just quoted is based on dissinformation. The congress has not done anything wrong because they trusted that the "facts" they based this on, were true.

I also find it hilarious that the Constitution and laws of the United States are used as arguments to attack another country.

Iain
12-17-2008, 03:49 PM
My, my, my......why such angry tones?


Possibly because you're being what we over here would call a complete knob.

Read what others are saying in reply to you and stop labouring a point that has been dismissed as irrelevant and naive already.

Chris S. (Fez)
12-17-2008, 04:03 PM
I think everybody needs to relax and take a shot of spiked egg nog.

vicrest
12-17-2008, 04:38 PM
Possibly because you're being what we over here would call a complete knob.

Read what others are saying in reply to you and stop labouring a point that has been dismissed as irrelevant and naive already.

You don't understand the Iraq War Authorization but base your 'opinion' on just 'others' who establishing just 'what'?

Over here, we'd call your post a 'raving rant'. Lots of talk but no substance.

I'm not following your mystery facts. Just saying something like 'what others are saying' is not fact.

Slow down and try to post an logical, factual, and specific post that will encourage a discussion.

Here's my 'opiion' backed up by the actions of a recognized authority (Congress).

Here's my post:

The facts that I've brought to the discussion is that 77 Senators, based upon a determination by Congress (not tricked by Bush) voted to give Bush a literal blank check to use war in any manor that he (Bush) determined against Iraq.

They did so under the authority they (Congress) had based upon the US Constitution and the UN Resolutions (again, I cited those in the actual Iraq War Resolution. (Post #27)

Seems to me (and here comes opinion based upon the 2002 Congressional Irag War Resolution) that if there's a (using your term) 'complete knob'....it is Congress who best fits that description.

OK....your turn.

Just calmly and simply lay out your 'opinion' and back it up with a recognized supporting authority.

vicrest
12-17-2008, 04:39 PM
My, my, my.......why such BIG RED LETTERS?

Did it get your attention that Congress concluded ...... not Bush 'tricked'?

Iain
12-17-2008, 05:05 PM
You don't understand the Iraq War Authorization but base your 'opinion' on just 'others' who establishing just 'what'?


When did I say something that led you to conclude that? From the beginning, I said that the "Authorization" you refer to was irrelevant. Someone else referred to international law, the Geneva Convention.

I could use enormous red letters to try to get you to respond to that but if you skipped over it before, you'll do so again.



Just calmly and simply lay out your 'opinion' and back it up with a recognized supporting authority.

My opinion is simply this: the last eight years have been harmful for your country and it's 'friends'. The figurehead of your government during that time-the man elected twice as your leader-has repeatedly revealed himself to be someone of low to average intelligence, not just through his support for an ever more ridiculous war.

Do you really need supporting information for that?

vicrest
12-17-2008, 05:13 PM
Are acting dense or are you dense?

Again....

And why don't YOU understand that "facts" in 1998 have very LITTLE to do with facts in 2001?

And Again...

I suppose you personally would make a financial decision TODAY based on information you had three years ago? You would... ONLY if you were STUPID.

Wow....let's see who's being (your words) 'STUPID'?

The US was attacked on 9/11/01.

Congress passed the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq on 10/02/02.

(Are you still with me?)

The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq (written by Congress) outlined Congress' conclusion based upon Congress' findings and granted the President 'a blank check' on operating the War against Iraq.

Congress in its Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq cited its own (Congress) findings that it put into law in 1988.

Congress was NOT tricked by Geo Bush.

Please go to Post #27 and fully read Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq passed by Congress on 10/2/02.

Go to Post #37 and see who actually voted to give Bush 'a blank check'. (They are part of Congress!)

Then come back here and post who you really think acted 'STUPID'!

vicrest
12-17-2008, 05:32 PM
WHAT DOES 1998 intelligence HAVE TO DO WITH the Iraq war?

What part of Congress acted on the Intelligence that it found don't you grasp?

Let me help you reach the conclusion that you should be getting to.

It's CONGRESS who is STUPID!

Congress is where your disgust should be directed!

(And yes I do have direct and personal knowledge of what Congress was told.)

Oedo 808
12-17-2008, 05:41 PM
The underlying point which I'd like ye Yankee thoughts on, if you folks would be so kind (because I'm not familiar enough with U.S politics), is this:

Do you think that Congress had unfettered access to all the relevant intelligence regarding the situation within Iraq?

*edit*

Does that above post suggest that Congress was misled?

krimpr
12-17-2008, 06:05 PM
I'd appreciate it if someone within range of Princeton would kindly throw a shoe at vicrest on my behalf.

Thanks in advance.

vicrest
12-17-2008, 06:09 PM
I'd appreciate it if someone within range of Princeton would kindly throw a shoe at vicrest on my behalf.

Thanks in advance.

So typical of those who can't debate issues.

They resort to violence!

Iain
12-17-2008, 06:10 PM
So typical of those who can't debate issues.

They resort to violence!

Or humour, as it's sometimes known.

vicrest
12-17-2008, 06:13 PM
Or humour, as it's sometimes known.

The 'so typical' continues....

They think violence is funny!

krimpr
12-17-2008, 06:21 PM
So typical of those who can't debate issues.

They resort to violence!


Of course I'm violent.. I'm a Canadian! World renowned "Shock and Awe" specialists on our seemingly unending quest to rid the planet of elusive WMD's. Oh... wait a minute. My bad.

krimpr
12-17-2008, 06:27 PM
Of course I'm violent.. I'm a Canadian! World renowned "Shock and Awe" specialists on our seemingly unending quest to rid the planet of elusive WMD's. Oh... wait a minute. My bad.

And this does **NOT** reflect my views of America or Americans. Only the boob who's running it for the next 30 days. If the hurled shoe is the worst thats happened to him after the mess he's made, then he got off lucky. Stop whining vicrest and duck...

UltraViolet
12-17-2008, 06:32 PM
Silly person! :dance:

That's US! :D

Here is lil' you tube video to back that up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWS-FoXbjVI

:)

jaxtone
12-17-2008, 11:02 PM
I thought that any "President, UN-representative, Prime Minister, Military Person In Charge" were just puppets on strings ruled by forces behind the scenes! But maybe that´s an understatement and the real truth would be revealed as: They are all "blind and lying" puppets on slippery strings!

What else could explain the circles of war that increase their areas decade after decade when most of the official world leaders all over the world say the opposite when they open their toxic mouths?

That official and false message is: Love, Peace and Understanding!

(Bad hippies or what?)

ted
12-17-2008, 11:21 PM
What part of Congress acted on the Intelligence that it found don't you grasp?


And don't forget who decimated our intelligence...Clinton! :thumbsdow
And who let the terrorists build their empire...Clinton! :thumbsdow
But it's so like the left to blame Bush for everything.

I'm not blaming Clinton for everything, or exonerating Bush from anything, but some of you guys sure like to blame Bush for everything.
Clinton, congress and the UN are guilty of letting things get so out of hand.
Put it in correct perspective. If you are capable.

DiedonD
12-18-2008, 12:42 AM
And don't forget who decimated our intelligence...Clinton! :thumbsdow
And who let the terrorists build their empire...Clinton! :thumbsdow
But it's so like the left to blame Bush for everything.

I'm not blaming Clinton for everything, or exonerating Bush from anything, but some of you guys sure like to blame Bush for everything.
Clinton, congress and the UN are guilty of letting things get so out of hand.
Put it in correct perspective. If you are capable.

Clinton helped the terrorists build their empire!? How so? Decimated your intelligence! What are you talking about?!

jin choung
12-18-2008, 12:58 AM
And don't forget who decimated our intelligence...Clinton! :thumbsdow
And who let the terrorists build their empire...Clinton! :thumbsdow
But it's so like the left to blame Bush for everything.

I'm not blaming Clinton for everything, or exonerating Bush from anything, but some of you guys sure like to blame Bush for everything.
Clinton, congress and the UN are guilty of letting things get so out of hand.
Put it in correct perspective. If you are capable.

oh yawn...

that's an attempt at an exoneration if i ever saw one.

perspective perspective perspective.... yahyahyah....

and who set us on a path of true economic disaster and ruin by eliminating usury laws and radical deregulation of everything you can think of: REAGAN....

how far do you wanna go teddy? kennedy? nixon? fdr? washington? ... pffffft....

and hey, we can extend this FORWARD too... anything and everything bad that happens in obama's administration will be the fault of one person: BUSH! how ya like dem apples?

give me an fing break and do the thing that you conservatives looooooove to talk about sooooooooooo much... TAKE SOME FING RESPONSIBILITY.

as just shown, we can play the SHIFT game all day and all night.

bs. f that.

if it happens on YOUR WATCH, it's YOUR FING FAULT. OWN IT. seriously, conservative sentiments are an utter, complete and ludicrous joke if you can't even apply it to your own guys! geeeez.... if you PREACH PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY then please with the fing exercise of it so you don't come across as just completely ludicrous... i mean COME on....

jin

DiedonD
12-18-2008, 01:05 AM
I don't know much what to say about Bush. Yeah, hes clumsy a bit. But hey, you wanted him. Twice.

What we would need here is some person on the ground telling it from first eye view. Don't we have an Iraqi Waver? If you are over there, don't be afraid to step forward. We can talk about it you know. You wont be fired or attacked upon your opinion. Its a free site here, you can say all you want :)

jaxtone
12-18-2008, 04:24 AM
I have read Mr Bush had a real good deal in the generous contributions he achieved from the Saudi Government! This deal was made when he was down and out! If this is true, how do you pay back such things?

biliousfrog
12-18-2008, 06:06 AM
And who let the terrorists build their empire...Clinton! :thumbsdow


y'see...this is what Bush is mostly to blame for...Terrorists are not a race of people. They do not live in the hills of Afghanistan or Iraq or Pakistan or Iran. You can't have a war on Terror, it's like a war on hate or a war on emotion or a war on Christianity or a war on democracy. You'll never win because you cannot stop people from having belief's and opinion's...and when you oppress people's belief's with violence they'll fight back with the same aggression.

The Bush regime has turned terrorism into a slogan, a catch-phrase, a marketing gimmick to encompass anyone that is against him. Terrorists have existed for as long as there have been politicians and will always exist but when you scream from the rooftops, 'with us or against us' you should expect those against you to work together.

So don't think that there is a terrorist 'empire', that's rediculous. It's like branding anyone that isn't pasty-white as black.

The US has been funding wars for years. Selling 'weapons of mass destruction' to countries all over. When you do that you should know what to expect when you piss them off...they get used against you.

Kuzey
12-18-2008, 06:43 AM
Kuzey, you honestly and truely believe Islamic doctrine purely preaches peace and plays no part in inspiring the extremists?

Yes I do, but like I said, that doesn't mean it gets misused by people in any kind of power from time to time. The act of a few doesn't mean everyone is responsible or evil because of their connection to a religion or race, or for that matter, the religion they say they belong to. It allows you to defend yourself in the act of being attacked, but not to kill innocent people, doing so is the ultimate crime in Islam. Burning/attacking a place of worship like a church is like attacking your own mosque...a big no no.

I can only tell you the truth but you won't believe me anyway. The only experience you seem to have of the whole issue, is through right wing media and not actual person to person experience. There is a difference between living a life and reading about it from biased point of view :hey:

Don't you remember the IRA, ETA, KKK, Nazis etc. etc. weren't they extremists/terrorists and weren't they all christian based. Thinking that terrorism is somehow equals Islam is totally wrong.

Extremism is a result of poverty, oppression, a lack of voice in the society and a lack of education...not religion.

Kuzey

hrgiger
12-18-2008, 07:29 AM
Don't know if this has been posted or not but now you can try your hand at beaning Bush with your shoes. My high score is 12 so far... http://www.sockandawe.com/

Chris S. (Fez)
12-18-2008, 09:58 AM
Kuzey, you honestly and truely believe Islamic doctrine purely preaches peace and plays no part in inspiring the extremists?:


Yes I do

You presume a lot about me, Kuzey. You cannot effectively argue that Islam is purely a religion of peace so you resort to insinuations of ignorance and inexperience on my part ("The only experience you seem to have of the whole issue, is through right wing media and not actual person to person experience") ("If you don't know the news is biased then I can't help you.")

I think you would do well to be concerned not with my interpretation of Islam but with how and why the vast majority of Muslim extremists are interpreting Islam. But like so many other Muslim moderates and apologists you reflexively blame anyone and everything BUT the doctrine ("Extremism is a result of poverty, oppression, a lack of voice in the society and a lack of education...not religion..")

Remarkably, you believe only politics and economics drive extremists to commit atrocities but NEVER religion. History, current events and personal experience have convinced me otherwise.

Moderates like yourself routinely condemn "Right Wing" elements for reporting on extremist interpretations and you condemn the terrorists...but you NEVER blame the doctrine itself. Indeed, too many Muslims and Muslim apologists in the West are readily willing to sacrifice personal freedoms to protect Islam from criticism.

According to you "Those cartoons are raciest and nothing was done about it but were held up as freedom of expression. If they were about living person then they would have been sued for sure."

This is a scary and bogus assertion. Islam is NOT a race. It is an ideology and as such it should not be safe from criticism or satire or reform.

Indeed, you yourself admitted that there is room for reforming how Shariah law regards woman:

"I welcome a woman's movement in Islam like that in the west, even though it hasn't reached it's goal of true equality."

Instead of desperately attempting to divert blame away from Islamic doctrine, why not be honest and accept that there are OTHER aspects of Islam that require reform?

IMHO the only person who can truthfully contend that Islam is purely a religion of peace is a person who has not read the Koran. Here is my post from earlier in the week:

"What concerns me more than the religious extremists are the moderates who refuse to admit that extremist views are based on legitimate doctrine.

Altaf Ali, executive director of South Florida's CAIR: "there is not a single sentence in the Koran that promotes killing of people." http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/ripti...ms_use_bus.php

Respectfully, is he delusional, dishonest or ignorant? Has he even read the Koran?

Robert Spencer says it best: "So much dissimulation depends on people not having read the Qur'an...

"slay the idolaters wherever ye find them" 9:5
"they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain"9.111
"fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness" 9.124
"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion"

etc.etc.etc.

The extremists are crazy but they are NOT crazy for thinking that the Koran "promotes killing of people." Here are just a few examples FROM THIS WEEK ALONE of Muslims killing/maiming/rioting/raping Christians in the name of their religion:

Modern, moderate Malaysia,
http://www.speroforum.com/site/artic...h+in+Indonesia

Nigeria,
http://www.compassdirect.org/en/disp...yname=&rowcur=


Somalia:
http://www.compassdirect.org/en/disp...page=summaries

Bangladesh:
http://www.compassdirect.org/en/disp...page=summaries

etc.etc.etc.

Instead of protecting the children of perishes, the cowardly Catholic church preferred to hide the harsh truth about pervert priests. Similarly, instead of encouraging honest discussion and reform, moderate muslims widely and systematically smokescreen the more unseemly aspects of Islam.

It is insulting."

ted
12-18-2008, 10:22 AM
Clinton helped the terrorists build their empire!? How so? Decimated your intelligence! What are you talking about?!

By ignoring their increasing growth and power. Including refusing to take Osama bin Laden when he was offered to us on more than one occasion.

Clinton also made it Illegal for the FBI and CIA to communicate and decimated their budget.

ted
12-18-2008, 10:29 AM
oh yawn...

and who set us on a path of true economic disaster and ruin by eliminating usury laws and radical deregulation of everything you can think of: REAGAN....

and hey, we can extend this FORWARD too... anything and everything bad that happens in obama's administration will be the fault of one person: BUSH! how ya like dem apples?

give me an fing break and do the thing that you conservatives looooooove to talk about sooooooooooo much... TAKE SOME FING RESPONSIBILITY.

if it happens on YOUR WATCH, it's YOUR FING FAULT. OWN IT.
jin

The economy rebounded during Regan's administration. I guess you didn’t know that. :D

Jin, Jin, Jin, You contradict yourself again. :D You say if it happens on your watch it's your fault, yet you say whatever happens in Obama’s watch will be Bush's fault. :question:
You are the type who only sees it ONE/YOUR way. :D

I said I'm not giving Bush a pass on anything. You need to learn how to read. :D

ted
12-18-2008, 10:36 AM
...and when you oppress people's belief's with violence they'll fight back with the same aggression.

The Bush regime has turned terrorism into a slogan, a catch-phrase,

So the terrorists are nice guys that should be left alone? Not.
As for them not being a country, exactly. That's why I give Bush credit for the most ingenious military strategy in history. Find a way to have them come to you which is what happened when we took out Sadam, which needed to be done anyway!

A catch phrase, like Global Warming? Thanks goodness Bush brought attention to this since the previous administrations and the pathetic UN had done nothing which is what gave them so much power in so many countries with their killing of innocent people.

biliousfrog
12-18-2008, 11:04 AM
So the terrorists are nice guys that should be left alone? Not.
As for them not being a country, exactly. That's why I give Bush credit for the most ingenious military strategy in history. Find a way to have them come to you which is what happened when we took out Sadam, which needed to be done anyway!

A catch phrase, like Global Warming? Thanks goodness Bush brought attention to this since the previous administration and the pathetic UN had done nothing which is what gave them so much power in so many countries with their killing of innocent people.

eh?...stirring up hatred against the US was all part of a genius plan to draw out terrorists? Tell that to families of people who have died in terrorist attacks.

You still seem to be confused by what a terrorist is. Please re-read my post and you'll see that I didn't advocate terrorism just point out that it is impossible to irradicate it and the entire notion of a war against it is ludicrous. It is also worth looking up 'terrorist' in the dictionary as it could easily be used to describe the current US president.

Saddam would still be in power if there wasn't any oil in his country. There have been far worse attrocities in Africa and the US (and UK) turns a blind eye because there is nothing to gain by invading it.

I'm sure Bush is only marginally worse than all other US presidents but you can't deny that he has had the biggest negative impact on the US in our lifetimes. Clinton brought the US out of decades of debt in his very short term and within no time at all Bush has pushed the country into more debt than it has ever been. While in office, Bush has taken the US from a world respected super-power to an almost bankrupt laughing stock with enemy's in all corner's of the world.

hrgiger
12-18-2008, 11:17 AM
That's why I give Bush credit for the most ingenious military strategy in history.


I'm not sure you can use the words Bush and ingenious in the same sentence. Maybe it would ok if you added the words 'is not' or 'bad examples of'.

jin choung
12-18-2008, 11:45 AM
The economy rebounded during Regan's administration. I guess you didn’t know that. :D

if you don't understand how his policies contributed to the economic ruin we see today, if you can't see how a sugar rush will make you feel good one day and then give you diabetes years down the road, i can't help you.

the only thing i contradict is your shortsighted commitment to failed principles.

jin

warmiak
12-18-2008, 12:23 PM
eh?...stirring up hatred against the US was all part of a genius plan to draw out terrorists? Tell that to families of people who have died in terrorist attacks.

You still seem to be confused by what a terrorist is. Please re-read my post and you'll see that I didn't advocate terrorism just point out that it is impossible to irradicate it and the entire notion of a war against it is ludicrous. It is also worth looking up 'terrorist' in the dictionary as it could easily be used to describe the current US president.

Saddam would still be in power if there wasn't any oil in his country. There have been far worse attrocities in Africa and the US (and UK) turns a blind eye because there is nothing to gain by invading it.

I'm sure Bush is only marginally worse than all other US presidents but you can't deny that he has had the biggest negative impact on the US in our lifetimes. Clinton brought the US out of decades of debt in his very short term and within no time at all Bush has pushed the country into more debt than it has ever been. While in office, Bush has taken the US from a world respected super-power to an almost bankrupt laughing stock with enemy's in all corner's of the world.


If US is almost bankrupt lauging stock than what do you say about UK ?

warmiak
12-18-2008, 12:25 PM
if you don't understand how his policies contributed to the economic ruin we see today, if you can't see how a sugar rush will make you feel good one day and then give you diabetes years down the road, i can't help you.

the only thing i contradict is your shortsighted commitment to failed principles.

jin

You have no idea what is happening so why bother blaming dead guy for stuff you don't understand.

**** ... nobody has any idea what is happening and how long will it take to get over it .

Cageman
12-18-2008, 12:30 PM
Don't know if this has been posted or not but now you can try your hand at beaning Bush with your shoes. My high score is 12 so far... http://www.sockandawe.com/

*LOL*

12 is my best as well...

Chris S. (Fez)
12-18-2008, 12:38 PM
13. Sockandawe: hilarious.

Cageman
12-18-2008, 12:52 PM
So the terrorists are nice guys that should be left alone? Not.
As for them not being a country, exactly. That's why I give Bush credit for the most ingenious military strategy in history. Find a way to have them come to you which is what happened when we took out Sadam, which needed to be done anyway!

I can't believe I just read that... Maybe you should start blaming your own government for letting the terroists into USA so that they could pull of 9/11 in the first place.... no?



A catch phrase, like Global Warming? Thanks goodness Bush brought attention to this since the previous administrations and the pathetic UN had done nothing which is what gave them so much power in so many countries with their killing of innocent people.

Bush is not the guy who made world-wide awareness of global warming and issues regarding our way of life and how it impacts life on earth. The guy you are reffering to is Al Gore, who, by the way, got a Nobel price for just that...

biliousfrog
12-18-2008, 12:56 PM
If US is almost bankrupt lauging stock than what do you say about UK ?

Much the same but currently one place above the US who is currently bottom of the trade defecit list

I've got a T-Shirt that says 'GB Ltd - a subsidiary of America Inc.', I think that sums it up quite well.

Chris S. (Fez)
12-18-2008, 01:15 PM
Respectfully, does anyone really doubt that 9/11 conspiracy theorists are delusional liars? IMO they can't refute the facts so they retreat into fantasy. Please show me one piece of evidence that has not been either reliably refuted OR been revealed to be pure fabrication/ propaganda.

biliousfrog
12-18-2008, 02:13 PM
Respectfully, does anyone really doubt that 9/11 conspiracy theorists are delusional liars? IMO they can't refute the facts so they retreat into fantasy. Please show me one piece of evidence that has not been either reliably refuted OR been revealed to be pure fabrication/ propaganda.

I think that this thread has already gone beyond what it was intended to be, dragging up the events of 9/11 is not going to be very productive, on topic or worth while.

vicrest
12-18-2008, 03:36 PM
And the National Debt grew INCREDIBLY as did the size of the government. I guess you didn't know that. :D

You are correct.

So who's directly responsible for the National Debt?

Let's go to the US Constitution.....

Article I
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States

Now you know who's responsible for the National Debt!

Hieron
12-18-2008, 04:23 PM
Ah :) good Vicrest.. was already sad that you didn't post for a while.

Now if only Stooch could come back too with his superb responses then I can take out the popcorn again.

Continue please! *munch* *munch*




ps: I could try to add a decent comment, but in debates like this it is absolutely pointless. The shoe was fun, the reflex the best thing I ever saw Bush do on stage.

Oedo 808
12-18-2008, 04:23 PM
Now you know who's responsible for the National Debt!
We're way ahead of you on this one, you mean George W. Bush, right?

"I win!"

"Where's the ketchup?"

vicrest
12-18-2008, 04:51 PM
So smart guy... I suppose it was Congress who decided to go to war with Iraq this second time all by itself?

Yes sir....you are right on point!

It was Congress giving the President a blank check to do what ever he wanted!

(Haven't we...those of us in this thread......had this discussion back in Post #27?)

Here's what Congress did fully following their responsibility as given in the US Constitution. But acting foolishly.

Their Joint Resolution was passed in Oct '02. The Senate vote was 77-23 and some big time Dems voted Yea.

You can see who voted which way at Post 39 of this thread.

It is my humble opinion (and Congress acted within its Constitutional authority....) that Congress acted as the foolish branch of government.

It wasn't Bush!

And anticipation of your next miss - 'point'.....It was not Bush who mislead Congress....it was Congress (again, PLEASE actually read their bill.....as they say about the soup.....it's in there!) foolish 'research' on WMDs.

Congress did not do what Congress should have done before they gave the President a literal blank check to conduct the war.

Congress was 'the fool'.

Here's the Iraq War Authorization.


October 2, 2002

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

vicrest
12-18-2008, 05:15 PM
Why the helll do you post such lengthy crap - the same lengthy crap you posted before. Do you just LIKE to waste space?

How can Congress truly be at fault when they were not provided with COMPLETE information? I know this may be difficult since you apparently have not read the previous posts - of course except the ones you keep quoting - but you cannot seem to fathom the FACT that Congress was not given complete information. Why is this do difficult to comprehend?

Try to think about it in simple terms....

You are told that your friend was beaten up by someone else. You get angry and go to deliver the beating to his attacker. Afterwards, you find out that the information you were given was not entirely accurate. In fact, it was your friend who was yelling insults at this other person and pushed that other person first goading this person to beat the crap out of your friend. Not having complete information clouds your decision-making.

-----------

You know what... don't even bother responding. I've already put you on my IGNORE list so I won't see what you write anyway. It's amazing - you just started here last month and all you manage to do is post primarily in the threads having NOTHING to do with Lightwave or other Newtek products. WHy did you even come here?

Let's see....should this post be described as a) hate.....or b) emotion....or c) off on a tangent.....or d) all of the above?

(but to answer his question: How can Congress truly be at fault when they were not provided with COMPLETE information?

The answer is......Congress is one of the 3 different branches of gov. Congress has the responsibility to get the info Congress needs to make intelligent decisions. If (and let's say they got their info ONLY from the Executive Branch.....but we KNOW that's not the case because Congress said in their bill 'Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235); ' Congress directlys says so clearly where they got their info.......1998 Congress concluded.

Congress was STUPID to give the Executive Brach a blank check on conducting war if the only source of their data came from the Executive Branch, but Congress was even more stupid to give a blank check based upon '1998 Congress concluded.'

It's not a hard concept to understand.....unless you're a Lib.

Stooch
12-18-2008, 06:18 PM
Yes to my typing. (I usually have someone else do my typing - that's not my thing.)


Do you have someone else do your thinking too? (you are killing me man).

vicrest
12-18-2008, 06:34 PM
Do you have someone else do your thinking too? (you are killing me man).

Nope.....I fully think for myself.

I provide clear thinking in my posts supported by recognized authority.....like the documents provided by our Founding Fathers.

My opinions are not about hate, emotion, or going off on tangents.

I welcome intelligent discussion.

But, after being active on a number of Forums and thousands of posts.....it has been my observation that those who fit the Liberal model have difficulty meeting my level or successfully challenge my posts.

They 'think' (I worry about putting those two words together) they are offering valid posts.....but most of the time after reading what they write it's easy to classify their posts a) hate, or b) emotion, or c) off on a tangent, or c) all of the above.

You know that they've totally lost it when they start posting coded profanity or just say that they're putting me on their 'ignore list'.

I continue my search for a 'thinking, articulate Liberal'.

ted
12-18-2008, 06:44 PM
Vicrest, Thank you for pointing out the facts to the closed minded! :D
But as you see, they can't handle the truth, or facts for that matter. Rather they try and insult you and see only their twisted truth. :D

Keep it up though. Prospector and I need a break! :thumbsup:

ted
12-18-2008, 06:47 PM
I suppose you guys are also against Obama having Rev. Warren speak at his inaugural.

vicrest
12-18-2008, 06:53 PM
Yet another one here who only WANTS to see one side.

Hey ted... do you even read news? Do you really KNOW what goes on? Did you read the Report (2007) regarding the war and intelligence? Do you even KNOW what you're talking about?

See or handle the truth? You are one to talk. ROTFLMAO :)

Twisted truth? ted... you are so far right, that... oh wait a minute, that's what I said about Prospector. Two peas in a pod. :thumbsup: Two people who really don't understand the Constitution and want to see it ONLY the way THEY believe it should be. :thumbsdow Whatsamatter ted, away from the Pro Prop8 rallies so you spend more time here?

but most of the time after reading what they write it's easy to classify their posts a) hate, or b) emotion, or c) off on a tangent, or c) all of the above.

I rest my case......

krimpr
12-18-2008, 07:20 PM
I rest my case......

Why do I have a hard time believing you?

vicrest
12-18-2008, 07:25 PM
Why do I have a hard time believing you?

Because you don't understand the process used in the legal system where 'I rest my case' has a clear concise, and conclusive meaning?

ted
12-18-2008, 07:28 PM
:D
I'm just waiting for my other computer to do a "Repair" and enjoying the banter. :D
Emotion, I think that's how some are making their decisions, emotion. The hate is in thier response. :D
I bet they talk this way to their families as well. So sad.

krimpr
12-18-2008, 07:38 PM
Because you don't understand the process used in the legal system where 'I rest my case' has a clear concise, and conclusive meaning?

....or it did up until post 143..... I rest my case.

ted
12-18-2008, 09:47 PM
[QUOTE=Megalodon;797177]Yes ted... we use emotion and rational thinking. People like US believe that you shouldn't judge someone else...QUOTE]

But emotion skews rational thinking. Go ahead and keep being emotional. :D

And yet you judge me and others at every turn. Hmmmm? :beerchug:

ted
12-18-2008, 10:26 PM
[QUOTE=Megalodon;797177]People like US believe that you shouldn't judge someone else...[QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Megalodon;797177] I can judge you quite easily. You are two-faced. You espouse calmness and coolness...[QUOTE]

Which is it? :D
When all else fails, go on the attack. And contradicting at that. :D
So sad..... and emotional. :hey:

Yes, I do prefer to discuss things with calmness and coolness, obviously unlike you. How is that a bad thing?

jin choung
12-18-2008, 11:18 PM
You have no idea what is happening so why bother blaming dead guy for stuff you don't understand.

speak for yourself.

just because the right cannot comprehend the failures of the right doesn't mean everyone else is equally blind.

again, i laugh (quite hard) at you "personal responsibility" cheerleaders that can't tolerate that idea being applied to your own.

admit it, your boy done fd up the country. and the right's ideologies of "rugged individualism" and "free, deregulated markets" lie in shattered ruins all around us. where's "self regulating markets" now? where's "free competition" now? what? we're supposed to be hands off when you win but now that it's time to die, you scream help? all the giants of finance and industry are CRYING "save us with socialsm".

hahahahahahahahaha.

ha.

if YOU don't know what's going on, SAY SO. but don't assume everyone is as clueless.

jin

Darth Mole
12-19-2008, 12:56 AM
I wanna see some wireframes.

jin choung
12-19-2008, 01:30 AM
not a wireframe exactly but kinda close....

http://blog.mint.com/blog/finance-core/a-visual-guide-to-the-financial-crisis/

as a game, we can try to identify how many of those nodes are agents that the right believed in (hint: A LOT OF THEM).

jin

p.s. another good chart http://blog.mint.com/blog/finance-core/a-visual-guide-to-the-financial-crisisthe-bailout/

Chris S. (Fez)
12-19-2008, 06:25 AM
Jin, I agree regulation is required but that chart just indicates to me the amount of ****** up "fuzzy math" financial institutions applied to alter the rules of risk to allow every American and his monkey to have a house. I have actually softened my stance concerning middle class house flippers. I look out my apartment window and see neighborhoods of people likely living in the houses they will die in.

Makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside to have a year to year lease.

Kuzey
12-19-2008, 07:43 AM
Kuzey, you honestly and truely believe Islamic doctrine purely preaches peace and plays no part in inspiring the extremists?:



You presume a lot about me, Kuzey. You cannot effectively argue that Islam is purely a religion of peace so you resort to insinuations of ignorance and inexperience on my part ("The only experience you seem to have of the whole issue, is through right wing media and not actual person to person experience") ("If you don't know the news is biased then I can't help you.")


What am I to think, you gave me a quote from the Koran as proof of your argument and I gave you the proper interpretation. All you responded with was a one liner, how respectful or better yet...insulting is that. I take the time to discuss this with you but you are calling me something that I'm not. So, if I'm wrong about the above two statements then I would apologize here and now...just show me I'm wrong, that's all it takes. I'm not scared to be wrong and never will be.




I think you would do well to be concerned not with my interpretation of Islam but with how and why the vast majority of Muslim extremists are interpreting Islam. But like so many other Muslim moderates and apologists you reflexively blame anyone and everything BUT the doctrine ("Extremism is a result of poverty, oppression, a lack of voice in the society and a lack of education...not religion..")


As you know, I said that religion can be used by people in power to misguide other people in a previous post and I stand by that. What you are saying is, if the person commits a crime and happens to be Muslim then it's the religion that's at fault, not that person. Can you see our different points of view, one is board based and the other is way too narrow.



Remarkably, you believe only politics and economics drive extremists to commit atrocities but NEVER religion. History, current events and personal experience have convinced me otherwise.

Moderates like yourself routinely condemn "Right Wing" elements for reporting on extremist interpretations and you condemn the terrorists...but you NEVER blame the doctrine itself. Indeed, too many Muslims and Muslim apologists in the West are readily willing to sacrifice personal freedoms to protect Islam from criticism.


Put it another way. As you know, Priests have been known to abuse children in their care for a long time now. The fact that it has occurred over a long period and mostly by Priests, can you show me where in the Bible it allows these Priests to do what they want with these kids. Since they are Priests, then it must written in the bible somewhere, it must be allowed and sanctioned by the Christian faith...yes, No???

Of course that is not true, but that's pretty much what you are saying about the Islamic faith. You are taking someones act and blaming the whole religion.



According to you "Those cartoons are raciest and nothing was done about it but were held up as freedom of expression. If they were about living person then they would have been sued for sure."

This is a scary and bogus assertion. Islam is NOT a race. It is an ideology and as such it should not be safe from criticism or satire or reform.


So, what you are saying that since it isn't are a race it can't be subject to racism, to discrimination? I must be living on the wrong planet.



Indeed, you yourself admitted that there is room for reforming how Shariah law regards woman:

"I welcome a woman's movement in Islam like that in the west, even though it hasn't reached it's goal of true equality."

Instead of desperately attempting to divert blame away from Islamic doctrine, why not be honest and accept that there are OTHER aspects of Islam that require reform?


I didn't say it was perfect. The culture aspect comes into to play because it's spread through so many countries and is slightly different were ever you go. Why don't women have the same Islamic dress across all nations, the differ widely. It's up to each woman to do what they think is right but if they want to be covered then the Benazir Bhutto's approach was the best. The stricter forcing of dress codes is done only in a few places and that should be proof to you that it's more culture/local customs than anything else.

I also said in that quote, that western women are not equal to men, but you didn't catch that. I read in a Aussie newspaper once that the holiday period resulted in larger occurrences of violence against women in Australia. I guess when the men are juiced up on alcohol they end up abusing their wife's and girlfriends, I'm sure that's the case in other western countries. So a lot of things are in need of reforms.



IMHO the only person who can truthfully contend that Islam is purely a religion of peace is a person who has not read the Koran. Here is my post from earlier in the week:

"What concerns me more than the religious extremists are the moderates who refuse to admit that extremist views are based on legitimate doctrine.

Altaf Ali, executive director of South Florida's CAIR: "there is not a single sentence in the Koran that promotes killing of people." http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/ripti...ms_use_bus.php

Respectfully, is he delusional, dishonest or ignorant? Has he even read the Koran?


that link doesn't work for me so I'll just ignore it.


Robert Spencer says it best: "So much dissimulation depends on people not having read the Qur'an...

"slay the idolaters wherever ye find them" 9:5
"they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain"9.111
"fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness" 9.124
"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion"

etc.etc.etc.



Here are more quotes for you:


009.006
YUSUFALI: If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.
PICKTHAL: And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not.
SHAKIR: And if one of the idolaters seek protection from you, grant him protection till he hears the word of Allah, then make him attain his place of safety; this is because they are a people who do not know.



009.007
YUSUFALI: How can there be a league, before Allah and His Messenger, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for Allah doth love the righteous.
PICKTHAL: How can there be a treaty with Allah and with His messenger for the idolaters save those with whom ye made a treaty at the Inviolable Place of Worship? So long as they are true to you, be true to them. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty.
SHAKIR: How can there be an agreement for the idolaters with Allah and with His Messenger; except those with whom you made an agreement at the Sacred Mosque? So as long as they are true to you, be true to them; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty).

Each one is three interpretations. You can read more at:

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/009.qmt.html




The extremists are crazy but they are NOT crazy for thinking that the Koran "promotes killing of people." Here are just a few examples FROM THIS WEEK ALONE of Muslims killing/maiming/rioting/raping Christians in the name of their religion:

Modern, moderate Malaysia,
http://www.speroforum.com/site/artic...h+in+Indonesia

Nigeria,
http://www.compassdirect.org/en/disp...yname=&rowcur=


Somalia:
http://www.compassdirect.org/en/disp...page=summaries

Bangladesh:
http://www.compassdirect.org/en/disp...page=summaries

etc.etc.etc.



If you do want a radical Imam tells you to and you kill or blow up something/someone is it the religion at fault or the person taking the action and not questing the Imam motives ans seeking another point of view.



Instead of protecting the children of perishes, the cowardly Catholic church preferred to hide the harsh truth about pervert priests. Similarly, instead of encouraging honest discussion and reform, moderate muslims widely and systematically smokescreen the more unseemly aspects of Islam.

It is insulting."

You are taking some honest discussion from me and because you don't like what you hear or it doesn't fit your narrow point of view...you cry foul.

And no you try to throw 9/11 into the mix...boy what else you want to get off your chest?

Kuzey

biliousfrog
12-19-2008, 10:13 AM
I think it's safe to say that this topic has gone way 'off'.

A guy threw some shoes at an old man, some found it funny, others didn't. Whether he deserved it or not is a matter of opinion but it is pointless trying to convert the majority with a string of quotes from disparate and flakey sources. All that has happened is that a light hearted look at a news item has turned into a rant of xenophobic, religious, political and downright bigotted views...from all sides.

A professional 3d forum is not a place to argue over political or religious views or to join with the sole purpose of hijacking a thread and starting a political flame war. Everyone has the right to their own opinion and the right to defend it but challenging each other to 'prove' they're right is pointless.

I think that perhaps we should agree to disagree and draw the line right here before the thread is closed and someone is banned. It would be such a shame for that to happen over something as stupid as a guy throwing his shoes at someone else.

vicrest
12-19-2008, 10:33 AM
The President of the United States of America, while representing our country on foreign soil in his official position, is not 'an old man'.

Further, when an act of violence is committed at our President (no mater what his political party is) that action can not be accepted as 'funny'.

It is proper and in order to call it what it was.

And those who fail to recognize an act of violence directed at our President or attempt to 'humor it' should be challenged.

parm
12-19-2008, 11:04 AM
The President of the United States of America, while representing our country on foreign soil in his official position, is not 'an old man'.

How old is he then?


Further, when an act of violence is committed at our President (no mater what his political party is) that action can not be accepted as 'funny'.


And yet it is. :)

Iain
12-19-2008, 11:22 AM
Hilarious, actually.

Oh no, I'm going to get 'challenged' now.

Glendalough
12-19-2008, 11:50 AM
The President of the United States of America, while representing our country on foreign soil in his official position, is not 'an old man'.

Further, when an act of violence is committed at our President (no mater what his political party is) that action can not be accepted as 'funny'.

It is proper and in order to call it what it was.

And those who fail to recognize an act of violence directed at our President or attempt to 'humor it' should be challenged.

What Pompous Twaddle!

Just hope the 'Princeton' location is a joke.

The pres could actually be a criminal (look at Nixon).

I know its hard for people like you to belive this. The point is, to for most Americans, Bush has completely disgraced the country, and few doubt that he has broken laws, but like Nixon, charges may not be pressed or only so far.

Glendalough
12-19-2008, 11:55 AM
Further More...

"Now, a bipartisan report by the Senate Armed Services Committee has made what amounts to a strong case for bringing criminal charges against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld; his legal counsel, William J. Haynes; and potentially other top officials, including the former White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff."

-NY Times Editorial.

biliousfrog
12-19-2008, 12:09 PM
The President of the United States of America, while representing our country on foreign soil in his official position, is not 'an old man'.

Further, when an act of violence is committed at our President (no mater what his political party is) that action can not be accepted as 'funny'.

It is proper and in order to call it what it was.

And those who fail to recognize an act of violence directed at our President or attempt to 'humor it' should be challenged.

And once again, your eagerness to be heard has shown your ignorance which is precisely why I wanted to save you from looking even more like a moron.

1) You cannot refute the fact that Mr Bush is an old man. It doesn't matter whether he's the president of the USA or a checkout operator in a gas station, he is a) old and b) a man

2) I said that some found it funny, other's didn't. You didn't, we know that, we accept it, there's no need for 10 pages of quotes from various websites to backup your case. Most people would think, 'I don't find that funny' and move on, some would type, 'I don't find that funny' and move on...You wrote an essay on it and continued to return back to the thread to tell us how wrong we all are.

3) I believe that Mr Bush was grinning during 'the incident'. Perhaps you would prefer to take the issue up with him and inform him of how irisponsible he is for not taking the matter seriously and stop contaminating this forum with your argumentative b*!!$£!t.

4) We all recognised the act of violence at the president, we chose to humor it, you chose to challenge it...job done!...now can we drop it?

Chris S. (Fez)
12-19-2008, 12:29 PM
First of all, the shoe flinging episode was not funny...it was hilarious. Nobody got hurt. Bush should encourage a full pardon.


What am I to think, you gave me a quote from the Koran as proof of your argument and I gave you the proper interpretation.

Again, if you and other moderate Muslims are so convinced that your interpretation is "proper" then why not protest the extremist interpretations with the same passion that you protest Cartoons and Teddy bears?



All you responded with was a one liner, how respectful or better yet...insulting is that. I take the time to discuss this with you but you are calling me something that I'm not. So, if I'm wrong about the above two statements then I would apologize here and now...just show me I'm wrong, that's all it takes. I'm not scared to be wrong and never will be.

Respectfully, I think you are missing the point. Again, MY interpretation does not matter. What matters is the interpretation of extremist Muslims. How and why are extremists reaching these conclusions about Islam and what can YOU as a moderate muslim do to counter these conclusions? Meanwhile you want me and the West to pretend that the doctrine doesn't exist? The extremist translations are not MY interpretations, they are the interpretations of mainstream Muslim scholars.




As you know, I said that religion can be used by people in power to misguide other people in a previous post and I stand by that.

But you also insist that religion, no matter how sexist or supremist or hateful, plays no part in inspring extremism. A few more passages from a religion you insist is "purely peaceful":

"8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah and the religion will all be for Allah Alone But if they cease, then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.

8:67. It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land. You desire the good of this world but Allah desires the Hereafter. And Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise.

9:29. Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the people of the Scripture until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

9:33. It is He Who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to make it superior over all religions even though the Mushrikun hate it."

Kuzey, can you not see how these passages could inspire extremists?



What you are saying is, if the person commits a crime and happens to be Muslim then it's the religion that's at fault, not that person.

I never said that. I never even insinuated that. I was very careful to say that "there is no question that conflicts are influenced by economic and political forces but I believe Islamic ideology has and will continue to play a part".

Legitimate Islamic sources irrefutably preach the subjugation of non-believers. You care to explain to anyone actually reading this what Dhimmitude is? How about the jizya?

The truth, as I and many former Muslims see it, is that Islam is peaceful only when everyone in the land submits to Islam by either practicing the faith or paying the jizya. Indeed, Islam means "submission" does it not?



Can you see our different points of view, one is board based and the other is way too narrow.

Your view of my view is incorrect.

I don't believe all Muslims are violent. I don't believe that most Muslims who commit violence are driven solely by ideology. I DO believe there are many scholarly Islamic sources that are sexist, supremist and inspire extremists to commit violence. I DO believe that the West should not sacrifice freedom just so Islam can receive special protective status. I do believe that moderate Muslims are wrong to condemn Western media as "Islamophobic" for merely reporting on the interpretations and violent activities of extremist Muslims.



Put it another way. As you know, Priests have been known to abuse children in their care for a long time now. The fact that it has occurred over a long period and mostly by Priests, can you show me where in the Bible it allows these Priests to do what they want with these kids. Since they are Priests, then it must written in the bible somewhere, it must be allowed and sanctioned by the Christian faith...yes, No???


Again, many scholarly Islamic sources are filled with hateful, sexist, supremist language from which extremists can draw inspiration and direction. The Bible might well preach pedophelia but I wouldn't know as I have not read the bible.



Of course that is not true, but that's pretty much what you are saying about the Islamic faith. You are taking someones act and blaming the whole religion.

I have never discounted the influence of economical, personal and political forces in driving extreme ideology. Conversely, you refuse to acknowledge the influence of religion on extremists.



So, what you are saying that since it isn't are a race it can't be subject to racism, to discrimination? I must be living on the wrong planet.

Discrimination? Jesus and Christianity are satirized in the Western media all the time yet you expect the West to grant special protection to Islam? Here's a quote for you to Google: "I might not like what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it"



I also said in that quote, that western women are not equal to men, but you didn't catch that. I read in a Aussie newspaper once that the holiday period resulted in larger occurrences of violence against women in Australia..

I ignored it because I felt it was irrelevant. It is a criminal offense in Autralia to beat people. Meanwhile, many mainstream interpretations of Islamic doctrine allow Muslim men to beat their wives.

The moral equivalence argument (Christianity is just as bad) is I think irrelevent to this discussion. I am a secular atheist. Why am I not equally concerned with Christianity? Because extremist christians are not systematically and universally invoking Christian doctrine to justify atrocities. Because Family Guy makes fun of Jesus most every episode without fear of offending Christians. Because they are installing foot baths in publically funded buildings in my city.

Muslims will come of age when Muslims have confidence enough in their faith to ignore a couple tastless cartoons.



You are taking some honest discussion from me and because you don't like what you hear or it doesn't fit your narrow point of view...you cry foul.

Again, it is not my point of view you should be concerned about. It is the point of view of extremist Muslims you should be concerned about.



Here are more quotes for you:.

Thanks! There are many beautiful aspects to Islam. I am merely suggesting that YOU and other moderate muslims be honest about the more unseemly aspects, instead of insisting that Islam is "purely a religion of peace."

Pretending the problem is not there is not going to fix it.

ted
12-19-2008, 01:26 PM
Sorry guys. The act of flinging a shoe at someone's head should not be considered "Funny" or "Hilarious". Not by any means.

A funny sign at his expense, go for it. Hold up a shoe in protest, fine. People could argue rude or not.
The fact that "Nobody got hurt", doesn't diminish the act.

The fact that Bush didn't exploit this showed more class then some of you have shown. His wife didn't think it was funny at all and thought George didn't make a big enough deal according to her interview.

Do this to the leader of any middle east country. Watch what happens.
Hardly funny.

parm
12-19-2008, 01:42 PM
Sorry guys. The act of flinging a shoe at someone's head should not be considered "Funny" or "Hilarious". Not by any means

What about an uncooked egg then. Would that be funny?

jin choung
12-19-2008, 01:45 PM
If you do want a radical Imam tells you to and you kill or blow up something/someone is it the religion at fault or the person taking the action and not questing the Imam motives ans seeking another point of view.

hey kuzey,

inasmuch as your religion seems to be under attack, you're being pretty level headed about it so good on you.

i have no desire to attack your religion in particular... i have a general problem with religions in general so take that as a prologue. but discussions about it are always interesting.

regarding the quote above - but the imam had a source that could be subject to such a reading doesn't he.

it's not like the radicals are making verses up either right? and if some interpret one way and another interprets another, then who is RIGHT?

is it your position that all the apparent calls for islamic violence is MISINTERPRETATION?

the thing that i think chris may be getting at is - are there INDEED verses that promote violence against non muslims?

yes, we understand that there are other verses that say other things too... but is it your position that ALL verses about violence against others are misreadings?
------------------------------------------------

having asked that, i find equally problematic things in the christian bible... tons and tons in fact....

lots of people talk about how the bible is a cornerstone of family values but there are verses that talk about how Jesus came to bring division between father and son, mother and daughter, etc....

the bible has been used to justify slavery. and there indeed is no verses that explicitly forbids it or condemns it... while it condemned other things like the eating of pork... go figure....

need i mention that there are those who use the bible to hold up big signs that say, "God hates fags?"

and as for the pedophilia in the catholic church... it may not come directly from the bible but you could legitimately question why it is that this religion seems to have this problem.

also, it seems to me that those who truly believe that abortion is murder and DON'T take militant action are complicit in that murder by standing by and doing nothing. kinda like being a german and sitting on your hands as you watch trainload after trainload of jews being taken to extermination camps.

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

so yeah, i'm not a fan of religions because underneath a veneer (perhaps core) of peace and love, there is a lot of really harmful ideas as well that people end up having to do hermeneutical gymnastics to get around....

jin

Chris S. (Fez)
12-19-2008, 01:56 PM
What about an uncooked egg then. Would that be funny?

Bush surprisingly ducking so deftly, with that weird, uncertain grin...the episode is so absurd how could it NOT be funny?

jin choung
12-19-2008, 01:57 PM
but that chart just indicates to me the amount of ****** up "fuzzy math" financial institutions applied to alter the rules of risk to allow every American and his monkey to have a house.

my point is that these institutions are NOT to be trusted. we regulate because the market is human, depraved and likely to be corrupted.

and i disagree with you about their intended purpose. their intended purpose was NOT to allow every american to have a house!

THEY COULDN'T GIVE A FLYING F IF YOU HAD TO LIVE IN A TREE FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE.

they didn't extend these loans out of some misguided sense of altruism!

they did it to MAKE THEMSELVES MONEY!

the transactions they undertook to create such financial "products", securitizing them and selling them off with AAA ratings to institutions all around the world was not about getting people into homes out of the goodness of their hearts! it was them having a way to make funny money for themselves!!!

make no mistake.

these were crooked fers looking out for themselves and THIS is why regulation is NECESSARY. greed may be an engine that gets people motivated but it doesn't STOP! it knows no bounds. and THAT is why regulation is needed.

laissez faire my a$s.

jin

p.s. and IF THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO FAIL, THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PEE WITHOUT THE TAXPAYERS HOLDING THEIR HANDS AND GIVING THEM A COLONOSCOPY AFTERWARDS. if you are not allowed to fail, you will be so regulated you won't be able to walk straight. and that is as it should be.

Glendalough
12-19-2008, 02:22 PM
...
The fact that Bush didn't exploit this showed more class then some of you have shown...


He looked foolish enough without having to "exploit" it.

And he missed his opportunity to turn it to his advantage when he failed to act like the good Christian he pretends to be and stop the security thugs from beating up the reporter.

Chris S. (Fez)
12-19-2008, 02:33 PM
Jin, I agree with much of what you said.

The government, with I can only assume the best of intentions, changed the rules of risk and encouraged financial institutions to get creative to accomodate the housing market. Working within a smokescreen of "creativity" Wall Street crooks abused the rules to line their pockets.

I guess my point, going back to my now stale lions and lambs metaphor, is that the government should never have let lambs into the market, at least not without a shepard. I mean, OF COURSE the lions are gonna help themselves.

Why the **** aren't any of these white collars on trial yet? It is infuriating. I just can't believe WE have to pay to save these criminals. A petty part of me wants to see all of Wall Street on the, um, street.



my point is that these institutions are NOT to be trusted. we regulate because the market is human, depraved and likely to be corrupted.

and i disagree with you about their intended purpose. their intended purpose was NOT to allow every american to have a house!

THEY COULDN'T GIVE A FLYING F IF YOU HAD TO LIVE IN A TREE FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE.

they didn't extend these loans out of some misguided sense of altruism!

they did it to MAKE THEMSELVES MONEY!

the transactions they undertook to create such financial "products", securitizing them and selling them off with AAA ratings to institutions all around the world was not about getting people into homes out of the goodness of their hearts! it was them having a way to make funny money for themselves!!!

make no mistake.

these were crooked fers looking out for themselves and THIS is why regulation is NECESSARY. greed may be an engine that gets people motivated but it doesn't STOP! it knows no bounds. and THAT is why regulation is needed.

laissez faire my a$s.

jin

p.s. and IF THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO FAIL, THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PEE WITHOUT THE TAXPAYERS HOLDING THEIR HANDS AND GIVING THEM A COLONOSCOPY AFTERWARDS. if you are not allowed to fail, you will be so regulated you won't be able to walk straight. and that is as it should be.

jin choung
12-19-2008, 05:07 PM
The government, with I can only assume the best of intentions, changed the rules of risk and encouraged financial institutions to get creative to accomodate the housing market.

again,

what you're writing is that somehow government "twisted their arms" to break the law and engage in ALL the illegal and illicit tactics they engaged in. THAT IS RIDICULOUS.

that's like a war criminal in vietnam saying "well, you told me to defeat the enemy so i just burned down the entire village with women and kids cuz they're all in on it sir."

these wall st. firms did NOT do all of their crazy securitization of idiotically bad loans FOR THE SAKE OF housing or the government. AIG didn't jump into essentially an unregulated form of insurance in order to fulfill some government mandate.

they did it to MAKE MONEY FOR THEMSELVES.

jin

jin choung
12-19-2008, 05:09 PM
Why the **** aren't any of these white collars on trial yet? It is infuriating. I just can't believe WE have to pay to save these criminals. A petty part of me wants to see all of Wall Street on the, um, street.

my sentiments exactly. and i don't think it's petty. somehow, we naturally, instinctively treat white collar criminals with kid gloves because they don't use violence or sell drugs or whatever.

but if you compare how many lives a street thug can ruin to how many a high powered banker can, i think the calculus gets clearer.

as i've been saying, we should start bringing back crucifixions... put them on wall st. itself. let them serve as a warning to those who would come after.

jin

DiedonD
12-20-2008, 01:18 AM
If you do want a radical Imam tells you to and you kill or blow up something/someone is it the religion at fault or the person taking the action and not questing the Imam motives ans seeking another point of view.

Exactly. There are all kinda people in all religions. Some are corrupted, some are politicians, and some just are ********.

Radical Priests sexually abuse male children.

Radical Imams lead poor, inable to properly interpret the Kur'an, oppressed people that dont have a voice to express their hell, into commiting suicide by killing innocent people, with the added condition that they "Shall be rewarded in heaven by God" . Just go ahead and kill yourselves and it will all be good afterwards, youll see ;)

Why... This reminds me of a corrupted Hoxha here (Spelled H O J A). I use to try out Islam then, among other religions, and went to this supposedly 'best' Hoxha in town. While the oppression was going out outside, and the western allies were coming in for help, he said 'Dont be a fool into thinking that NATO would come for help here. Only Islam and God will help you. Stay away from the night, and step forward in the light of the day!'

See NATO, is close with the word 'Nata' in albanian, which means Night. So he was saying, stay away from the NATO offer basically, cause it symbolyses the darkness of the night, and join Islam cause it symbolyzes The light and prosperity.

People were fighting oppression. Saying a big NO to: rape, torture and innocent killings by the Nazzi Serbian Regime under Miloschevich, and allies werent going to stand by and watch any longer, and nobly offered help, and this ******* BASTARD was telling the mass to ******* 'STAY AWAY FROM THE NIGHT!!!'

Unbefuckinglivable man!!!! To what aim?! Achieve what?! Replace that much needed help with what??!!! Islamic terrorists maybe?! Make this place a terrorist nest??!!! No thanks! They seem to have done a bang up job in Bosnya as it is!

But, even though everyone knew he was corrupted, people spoke of him commitiing adultery, and saying 'Dont do what I do, just do what I say', still he was among strongest Hoxha's in town, just because he could give a Yelling Voice that most needed. A much needed voice is very required while in oppression. Be it even if it is to the total undoing of their people with ******** statements such as those above.

parm
12-20-2008, 12:34 PM
.......
those puppies would be e-bay GOLD! who has them?! did he get em back or are they being held for his trial and execution at gitmo?.......

It seems they are indeed very coveted. From BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7785338.stm) earlier in the week:


The shoes themselves are said to have attracted bids from around the Arab world.

According to unconfirmed newspaper reports, the former coach of the Iraqi national football team, Adnan Hamad, has offered $100,000 (£65,000) for the shoes, while a Saudi citizen has apparently offered $10m (£6.5m).

jin choung
12-20-2008, 08:18 PM
It seems they are indeed very coveted. From BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7785338.stm) earlier in the week:


lol....

see? this is the gift that keeps on giving. this is what is known as comedy gold on the stand-up circuit.

priceless indeed....

jin

Kuzey
12-21-2008, 08:17 AM
hey kuzey,

inasmuch as your religion seems to be under attack, you're being pretty level headed about it so good on you.

Thank you Jin.

I like to think of myself as a student of life...always learning. I'm always curious as to why people do the things they do. I pretty much started arguing with grown ups as a kid, when some is does something wrong I usually tell them. Those were the days :)

I don't pray five times a day etc. only because I don't know the Arabic text or language. I used to fast all the time as a kid/teenager but stopped once I started fainting because of it. Fasting, lasts for a minimum of 12 hours a day for a month and sometimes longer depending on what time the sun sets and where you are in the world.



i have no desire to attack your religion in particular... i have a general problem with religions in general so take that as a prologue. but discussions about it are always interesting.


And I wouldn't see it as an attack either. Discussion is always a good thing and in fact it is encouraged by Islam to question everything even the religion itself, it is up to the individual for find the right path themselves and not be blind in following what people in power say to do etc.



regarding the quote above - but the imam had a source that could be subject to such a reading doesn't he.

it's not like the radicals are making verses up either right? and if some interpret one way and another interprets another, then who is RIGHT?

is it your position that all the apparent calls for islamic violence is MISINTERPRETATION?


Here's a good article that might help make it clearer:

http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=161857

There used to be one person who represented the whole religion, called a Caliph, sometimes they had real power and sometimes they were puppets of the empires. It's similar to the Pope and the christian empires over the years, back then one person was responsible for what was considered the correct interpretation and what not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliph

Now, it's more like the majority rules....otherwise, there would be all of the 1.6 billion of Muslims out there causing trouble. I wouldn't know the number of extremists, but lets say for arguments sake it's a million but probably smaller. The difference is huge, the minority doesn't mean the whole religion promotes violence, as some people like to push on tv and what not, again usually for their own agendas.

http://www.islamicweb.com/begin/results.htm

In the end, it is up to the individual to make sure they have all the correct views and have asked the correct questions to the right people. If a person is manipulated into a terrorist act then he only has himself to blame and this act is not an act of Islam.



the thing that i think chris may be getting at is - are there INDEED verses that promote violence against non muslims?

yes, we understand that there are other verses that say other things too... but is it your position that ALL verses about violence against others are misreadings?
------------------------------------------------


There are verses that cover what you can do in a state of war, but even then it's a crime to kill innocent people. The first quote that Chris gave a few pages back, was not violence against other people as he might have fought but a wrong doing if a Muslim converts to another religion. It didn't spell out you must kill people just that it's a sin to leave your faith.

To get the correct interpretation it is wise to broaden your approach to include as many interpretations from reliable people as possible and then work from there. You will most likely get it wrong every time is you just find the one interpretation that fits your own view and ignore all the rest. You really have to have a common sense approach....that's all.




having asked that, i find equally problematic things in the christian bible... tons and tons in fact....

lots of people talk about how the bible is a cornerstone of family values but there are verses that talk about how Jesus came to bring division between father and son, mother and daughter, etc....

the bible has been used to justify slavery. and there indeed is no verses that explicitly forbids it or condemns it... while it condemned other things like the eating of pork... go figure....

need i mention that there are those who use the bible to hold up big signs that say, "God hates fags?"


This is the same with what is happening with Islam, people taking their own customs/ideas and adding it to the religion to justify their own wrong doings. This is what I have been saying, it's manipulated by bad people in power or local culture/customs and a lack of education etc.




and as for the pedophilia in the catholic church... it may not come directly from the bible but you could legitimately question why it is that this religion seems to have this problem.


Although it's not in the bible the church itself would be to blame, as it has failed to protect it's people from those priests. In Islam the Imam can have a wife, you will be hard pressed to find one who is single. I don't know why priests can't marry, but I believe that's different depending on the sect. That could fix a lot of those problems off the bat.



also, it seems to me that those who truly believe that abortion is murder and DON'T take militant action are complicit in that murder by standing by and doing nothing. kinda like being a german and sitting on your hands as you watch trainload after trainload of jews being taken to extermination camps.

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

so yeah, i'm not a fan of religions because underneath a veneer (perhaps core) of peace and love, there is a lot of really harmful ideas as well that people end up having to do hermeneutical gymnastics to get around....

jin

I believe we have been saying the same thing, that unfortunately, other things come into play, corrupt ideas because of this or that view or custom or tradition or even education etc. etc.

kuzey

cresshead
12-21-2008, 09:44 AM
have you played the game yet?

http://www.sockandawe.com/

DiedonD
12-22-2008, 12:50 AM
have you played the game yet?

http://www.sockandawe.com/

I kinda ignored till now. And thought I joined everyone and went to the site. But nah, I cant do it. Its kinda wrong...

rakker16mm
12-22-2008, 02:26 AM
have you played the game yet?

http://www.sockandawe.com/

I find it very challenging using the track pad.

Kuzey
12-22-2008, 07:14 AM
have you played the game yet?

http://www.sockandawe.com/


Yes...I just got a score of 15.

It seems people all over world want a pair for their own, the shoes that made Bush duck and weave.

There must be a tv ad or many more in there somewhere :neener:


Kuzey

Dexter2999
12-22-2008, 09:35 AM
Jin

Did I misundersand the news reports on AIG? I thought AIG was on the up and up when it came to insuring companies. The problem was that the companies they were insuring were folding due to participating in the trade of these "secured" packages of high risk loans.
I saw the YouTube version of the 60mins interview where the guy explained that the traders specificaly didn't use the word "insured" because then it would have been regulated. Yeah, that didn't raise my blood pressure or anything...

I am with you on regulation. Greed is the fuel that makes the engine go. Regulation would be the tracks, that keep it on course.

jin choung
12-22-2008, 11:59 AM
Jin

Did I misundersand the news reports on AIG? I thought AIG was on the up and up when it came to insuring companies. The problem was that the companies they were insuring were folding due to participating in the trade of these "secured" packages of high risk loans.
I saw the YouTube version of the 60mins interview where the guy explained that the traders specificaly didn't use the word "insured" because then it would have been regulated. Yeah, that didn't raise my blood pressure or anything...

I am with you on regulation. Greed is the fuel that makes the engine go. Regulation would be the tracks, that keep it on course.

that's exactly right. they avoided regulation that could have saved them (and us) by using a loop hole. what they did was insure... they did indeed offer insurance, whatever they called it. but what they called it allowed them to dodge restrictions.

legally and technically, they are in the clear but they are no less culpable because of it. their end run around the rules left them OPEN to engage in a practice that was ludicrously profitable and "too good to be true" in the good times. and their exposure endangered the rest of the economy.

if we let them fail, then their "gamble" would've been fine by me. you win you win. you lose you lose. vegas rules.

but we're not letting that happen. instead of paying the piper, they went crying to mommy.... and for that, they deserve to be as harshly condemned as the rest of wall st.

again, public crucifixions all along wall st. are in order.

jin

Kuzey
12-22-2008, 12:37 PM
Just a clarification about the state of war comment I made.

It's true you can use them to conduct yourself in a situation like war, those violent verses were actually part of a greater section describing the battles that the prophet was involved in during his lifetime. More of a story than a how to guide when you come into contact with other people/races/religions and only in the context of war.

Out of context, you can argue that the religion promotes violence but that's not the truth. Like I said, those verses can be used as a guide but only in war.

Here is one such battle if anyone is interested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Uhud

Now.....back to your normal programing :D


Kuzey

JBT27
12-22-2008, 02:11 PM
Bush surprisingly ducking so deftly, with that weird, uncertain grin...the episode is so absurd how could it NOT be funny?

OK - I haven't read all this thread, but in answer to the first post and others, I agree with the above - quick moves, no panic, good response - no weapons drawn that you could see, amazingly.

I only wonder what would have happened had that been in London with armed units of the Metropolitan Police around, and no, that's not sick humour.....seriously, after recent events you really do wonder.

Julian.