This thread could run forever, because everybody has a right to their own opinion, and thank God we are allowed to air it without somebody knocking on your door and putting a bullet in you or your loved ones.As a totally apolitical person,I must state that George W. Bush appears to many People in Europe as an inept,and, unfortunately,rather inarticulate bumbler.That does not mean to say He is, it is just the way He comes over.As He would also appear to be Dancing to the tune of omnipotent Shadowy background figures(which nowadays is unfortunately inevitable because money(Commerce) has more power than logic, reason and integrity),and if that is the case, I am sure a more articulate and appealing puppet should have been chosen.Bill Clinton's personal sexlife is nobody's business, and has no bearing on his ability to carry out His job.He also came across as a"Statesman" with a powerful aura, and POLITICAL integrity, commanding respect from both supporters and opposition.This would appear to have been backed up by his non-removal from office during the ridiculous use of His sexual tastes and predilections against Him.I wonder how many PFF members have never strayed from the straight and narrow when offered tempting diversions?
The sheer blinkered American attitude that technology and weaponry can overcome sly,cunning and devious oponents is very worrying.If you really believe that you can find WMD in such a barren country as Iraq easily, you are not being realistic.If you had not had assistance in the discovery of Saddam, my bet is you would never have found him.The hunt was only continued in that place, after the first failures, because you had definite information that He was there.You could have been in the same position with WMD,walking right over the buried stockpile, and because you didn't find it first time, and had no information confirming it being there, you passed along to the next potential site without further investigation. We are not talking Warehouse sized objects.With today's technology, a completed weapon could be hidden in caves, underground earthworks, naturally formed cavities in the earth's crust, which would only be known to local People,who would then conveniently disappear,taking with them that knowledge.And, you don't need rockets to deliver them to their targets.They are observable from the moment of launching, and the possibility of destroying it or diverting it, is getting stronger all the time.Ship it to the destination in the hands of a suicide bomber, and if you don't detect it en route, He could carry it in a suitcase to its destination, and have the potential to blow up half of New York in one go.The modern trend of obsession with technology diverts attention away from the basic cunning and opportunism of today's Terrorist Organisations, and ignoring the simple and ages-old Human cunning.Nowadays, with the advent of suicide Bombers, the ultimate deterrent,the fear of dying, has been taken from our hands, and is uncontrollable,except by teaching these People that there IS no ultimate glory in another world after a "Martyr's"death.Martyrdom is a phallacy, and they are being used by People who know this, yet are so immoral, they encourage them with hollow promises of Glory in the life hereafter.I haven't heard the Pope, or any other religious Leader in the West,challenging this dreadful belief.Do they know something we don't?
As a last word, it grieves me to see people on this Forum showing scant respect for other peoples' beliefs, and trading insults in the name of Politics.I am sure you are all decent Human Beings, so let's conduct ourselves that way.Scoring "Political" points over one another really is a waste of time and enevitably causes antagonism without solving anything..."the meek shall inherit the earth"
God Bless RIghteousness..
fierofetish

[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 12-15-2003).]

quote Originally posted by jstricker: Talk about getting off a moral High Horse, maybe you should look in a mirror. You seem so eager to lump all Americans in one bunch I think it's only fair that we do the same for the Brits. You dare call the US Imperialistic? We have a long way to go to match GB. You had a whole continent that was a penal colony at one time

I have looked in the mirror, and publicly displayed my anger & disdain on this very fu#king forum, on occasion with you, so I don’t know where you feel you have the right to sit there and tell me I haven’t been introspective. Search the O/T archive & you will see me there bringing out the rarely heard truth about Winston (murderous ******* ) Churchill amongst other things. (point one makes you look like you’re in diapers IMHO)

quote Originally posted by jstricker: Oh, you say that was a long time ago?

I want you to post a link to the post that contains that reply (point two is a total fabrication, you just shat in your diapers)

quote Originally posted by jstricker: Many of the things you continually throw up to us was a long time ago

LOL so you have a go at me over something that I didn’t say, only to turn around and say the thing that you lied about me saying……Let me get this right, You make up a excuse for me and then slag off that excuse, only to turn around in the next sentence and use that very same excuse. (after sh#tting in your diapers, you then drop on your ass shooting poo juice up your own back)

quote Originally posted by jstricker: You say you didn't support that? So?? You're a citizen of the UK, aren't you?? That makes YOU responsible for it.

Finally we are getting somewhere!!! Your beginning to understand now aren’t you!!! (For the people, by the people) (after waiting for someone to wash the sh#t off your back, you finally realise it’s you own fu#king mess)

quote Originally posted by jstricker: Many of the issues you bring up about supporting Saddam in the past happened before most of the forum members could either vote or, in many cases, were born, but it's still our fault, isn't it. You say that the US is a failure in the "Big World", I just wish you'd grow up and mature enough to get out of YOUR political diapers before you pass judgement on someone else.

I refer you to your earlier quote: “ you say that was a long time ago? So?? Many of the things you continually throw up to us was a long time ago. You say you didn't support that? So?? You're a citizen of the UK, aren't you?? That makes YOU responsible for it.” (How many voices do you hear?)

In regard to this reply I made one assumption and that is that the following was meant as irony “but it's still our fault, isn't it” I hope I was correct in my assumption.

To give you the benefit of the doubt here, I understand that this weekend has been a cause for celebration for you and you may therefore still be feeling the effects of the drugs and or alcohol consumed in celebration of the capture of a murderous filthy pig of a man!!!

Surely this post from Carlc proves my point...Bad language does not reinforce your point, it only reflects badly on you, and overshadows any valid points you MAY have made
fierofetish

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: Surely this post from Carlc proves my point...Bad language does not reinforce your point, it only reflects badly on you, and overshadows any valid points you MAY have made fierofetish

I sincereley appreciate your concern.

Language evolves; what was once seen as offensive can now be seen in various ways, this evolution may take differing paths in differing cultures, you take the high road and i'll take the low rd, f#ck who gets there first so long as we get there!!!

quote Originally posted by Carlc: I sincereley appreciate your concern. Language evolves; what was once seen as offensive can now be seen in various ways, this evolution may take differing paths in differing cultures, you take the high road and i'll take the low rd, f#ck who gets there first so long as we get there!!!

Language does indeed evolve. Too bad that some don't evolve with it.

Carlc, your posts are wandering, hate-filled tripe. I won't even respond to it.

IMHO
President Bush got Christmas a little early this year. He got that Ahole that tried to kill his Daddy. Good going. The world has one less mass killer taken into custody alive. Damn them troops done a great job.

"What's you gonna do when our troops find you?"

"negotiate" I don't think so!

Ohh yeah almost forgot to say CHALK ONE UP FOR THE REPUBLICANS

I must give credit where it is due.

quote Originally posted by I'm Back: Paleeeese!!! I entered the Air Force when I was 17, spent 2 years stateside, then went to Guam fro 15 months. While there, I went to Australia and through Hawaii (still US but not contiguous). I earned my pilot's license while at Guam and flew my cross-country's to Saipan, Tinian, and Rota. I went to Hawaii on a job later on for a while. I've been to Mexico several times as an adult, and been to Canada several times as a kid and once early on in the Air Force. I've been to many US states, and lived in several.

And with all this opportunity to learn something you chose to hang out in the local brothels I suppose. You clearly have NO IDEA what the rest of the world really thinks.

A sad waste of carbon molecules.

This is truly a great event in human history and the world will laud this accomplishment for generations. Way to go Mister President!

[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 12-15-2003).]

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Language does indeed evolve. Too bad that some don't evolve with it.

That is exactly what I was trying to explain to fierofetish!!! ; )

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Carlc, your posts are wandering, hate-filled tripe. I won't even respond to it.

At least my posts are pertinent to the subject matter at hand, Lets get this right; I write a relevant paragraph to a debate regarding a similarity between Saddam & Hitler, along with a congratulation on the capture by the US & Kurds of Saddam, albeit with a cutting but pertinent remark on US history.

Jstricker replies with outrageous untruths, and I reply using wit (IMHO) & adult language to display my stupefaction at the comments, and you take me up on my use of language!!

It has always been said that when you guys find yourself in a corner you play dirty, taking the argument to matters of spelling, punctuation, use of bad language which serves it’s purpose in so far as the topic gets left to die while you use smoke and mirrors to escape justifying your beliefs – don’t be scared & hide, stand up for your beliefs!!!

I think you misunderstand the title for this part of the forum “Off Topic”.

Hate filled? Wandering? - Dumbfounded maybe but hate filled, boy there's a helluvalota this world you haven't seen.

[This message has been edited by Carlc (edited 12-15-2003).]

The US is now supposed to be mind readers too so that we shouldn't be allies with someone who might turn bad in 20 years... Guess we better build a big wall between us and Canada! No telling what they might do in 20-30 years and we sure don't want anyone blaming us for it!

quote Originally posted by Carlc: I reply using wit (IMHO) & adult language

Evolves?

After hearing Ebonics I'd have to say it "devolves". However, profanity has nothing to do with evolution of language.

I've often pondered the euphamism of refering to childish launguage as "adult". Funny, the older I get, the less impressed I am with profanity as a means of communication.

It reminds me of how great it was to turn 18 and be able to legally drink alcohol (it was 18 in them olden days). I ran right out and drank myself stupid. Now it takes me a month to get through a 6-pack.

At some point we all learn that being ABLE to do something does not mean that it is worth doing. Besides, the overuse of profanity lessens the impact of a GREAT swear word appropriately used at the most tactically advantageous moment in a debate.

As Jim Brown said about making a touchdown, "act like you've been there before."

quote Originally posted by Songman: The US is now supposed to be mind readers too so that we shouldn't be allies with someone who might turn bad in 20 years... Guess we better build a big wall between us and Canada! No telling what they might do in 20-30 years and we sure don't want anyone blaming us for it!

You are carefully forgetting the eye turning by both our governments (take note stricker)when the Kurds got gassed, oh and the satellite images of Iranian troop movements given to Saddam by the US prior to him gassing them. There is unintentional help to a crime, and then there is complicity.

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: Bill Clinton's personal sexlife is nobody's business, and has no bearing on his ability to carry out His job.He also came across as a"Statesman" with a powerful aura, and POLITICAL integrity, commanding respect from both supporters and opposition.

I won't even waste my time...

it's funny how the people of the world still think that was about a BJ.

quote Originally posted by Spektrum-87GT: It's also not fair to say that liberals would not do anything to protect national security. We were never attacked under Bill Clinton and to say that he set us up for 9/11 is unfair because there is no proof to back that statement up.

Are you serious? Have you already forgotten the first time the World Trade center was attacked by terrorists, back in 1993? How about the bombing of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania by terrorists in 1998? Or maybe the terrorist bombing of the USS Cole in 2000? Fact is, while we were REPEATEDLY attacked during Clintons terms as president he did little about them (which, by the way, only emboldened the terrorists and DID lead to the 9/11 attacks).

quote If you don't believe Democrats will go to war. During WW1 and WW2, we had democatic presidents.

Those were also times of different Democrats. You also forgot to mention Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, etc.

quote Republicans are so quick to say that Democrats will not do anything if we get attacked or need to go to war. There are no facts that back that up. You cannot say "because Clinton didn't act against terrorists". I hate to break this fact to you, but neither did Bush before 9/11, so the point is moot.

See above. I certainly can say that Clinton didn't act against terrorists, because he virtually didn't. To be fair, the full scope of terrorist networks and financing probably wasn't realized, but to deny how much they flourished under Clinton's presidency is sheer ignorance. Clinton had 8 years full of terrorist attacks against the United States and what did he do about? Bush had less than 8 months as president before we were attacked again and over 2 years later he's still kicking a$$.

Hey, the U.S.(J.F.Kennedy) essentially "created" Saddam, I guess it was up to us to take him out.
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030410-070214-6557r

Hi trailboss..no need to attempt to guess your political leanings, not that I find it particularly important.I would appreciate you taking the time to bother to explain to me which part of the statement you are rolling your eyes to?As I said, I have no political bias, because I don't think Politics is worth discussing, because by it's Nature, it has to be corrupt.Anybody who managed to achieve the dizzy heights of Leading a Country, would pretty soon find himself dead or out of office,(the USA has an unenviable record for that) if he tried to implement processes that are GENUINELY good for the Country...why? because everybody wants their cake and to eat it too.If you take away the cake from the Financially powerful, they will soon do something aboutit.If you take it away from the needy, they don't have a leg to stand on, and no political muscle.Big Business is the controller in any Capitalist Country.Try and take away from the greedy to give to the needy? You wouldn't last very long, that is for sure.
Getting back to Saddam Hassain :don't get too excited about it:He was a spent and irrelevant force long ago, and was of no consequence in what has happened since the invasion of Iraq.He, like Bush and many other leaders in this World, danced to the tune of others.They are still there, and this war(make no mistake it is still a war) will, unfortunately, only escalate(if Iam proved wrong within three months, I will donate to PFF, over and above my monthly contribution,$50:it will be well worth it to be proved wrong).
He was found only when He had served his purpose.If He had been taken in an environment where he was defended up to the hilt, with technology to be able to control the cowardly attacks on Troops and Iraqis alike, I would think it was an achievement of some note.Unfortunately, He was dug up like the abandoned rabid dog that he is.Useless to anybody,even to American propaganda, because it is so obvious he had been abandoned.
All those millions of dollars spent on this necessary but fruitless invasion would have been better used killing the drugs trade, which finances so much that is obscene in our modern society,including terrorism, probably the main recipient of largesse from this terrible trade.

PS Carlc, if you read Fierobear's reply, you might notice by agreeing with him, you have made yourself look rather silly, because HE WAS POINTING OUT THAT YOU HAVEN'T EVOLVED!!also, if you took the time to check on my location, you would notice that I am not in America,and finally say that your aspiration to Adult language falls miserably on its face...I hear many young and immature kids swearing their heads off to impress. but can hardly spell their own name, or string a grammatically correct sentence together.Correct use of the Queen's English can be more expressive than swearing, and not, as I pointed out already, a diversion from whatever possibly valid point your are trying to make.

[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 12-15-2003).]

quote Originally posted by BN Boomer: And with that the pot called the kettle black.

uhhh.. where did i ever say I don't have a red bar.. I'm don't share the opinion of the majority..

Not to get too far off topic of Cold Fusion and foul language, but did you hear Saddam was caught?

Amen, formula 88!

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: Hi trailboss..no need to attempt to guess your political leanings, not that I find it particularly important.I would appreciate you taking the time to bother to explain to me which part of the statement you are rolling your eyes to?As I said, I have no political bias, because I don't think Politics is worth discussing, because by it's Nature, it has to be corrupt.Anybody who managed to achieve the dizzy heights of Leading a Country, would pretty soon find himself dead or out of office,(the USA has an unenviable record for that) if he tried to implement processes that are GENUINELY good for the Country...why? because everybody wants their cake and to eat it too.If you take away the cake from the Financially powerful, they will soon do something aboutit.If you take it away from the needy, they don't have a leg to stand on, and no political muscle.Big Business is the controller in any Capitalist Country.Try and take away from the greedy to give to the needy? You wouldn't last very long, that is for sure. Getting back to Saddam Hassain :don't get too excited about it:He was a spent and irrelevant force long ago, and was of no consequence in what has happened since the invasion of Iraq.He, like Bush and many other leaders in this World, danced to the tune of others.They are still there, and this war(make no mistake it is still a war) will, unfortunately, only escalate(if Iam proved wrong within three months, I will donate to PFF, over and above my monthly contribution,$50:it will be well worth it to be proved wrong). He was found only when He had served his purpose.If He had been taken in an environment where he was defended up to the hilt, with technology to be able to control the cowardly attacks on Troops and Iraqis alike, I would think it was an achievement of some note.Unfortunately, He was dug up like the abandoned rabid dog that he is.Useless to anybody,even to American propaganda, because it is so obvious he had been abandoned. All those millions of dollars spent on this necessary but fruitless invasion would have been better used killing the drugs trade, which finances so much that is obscene in our modern society,including terrorism, probably the main recipient of largesse from this terrible trade.

The rolling eyes I posted was in response to the way you claim to be unbiased. You stated that You don't know if it's true or not, then you state that all most of Europe believes that george Bush is basically a fool. You then state in glowing terms what a great leader Clinton is.
I don't care to hijack the thread into all of the malfeasance that took place during his tenure, and none of it was related to his sex life.

He was masterful at using focus groups and the media to mold public opinion and it doesn't surprise me that he is looked upon favorably by most of Europe.

Regarding your comments on the rich /poor...
I am neither rich nor poor, I am middle class but redistribution of wealth is not the answer. Stealing from people that work for a living to support those that don't want to work is immoral. Liberalism never sees it that way though.

That is all that I really care to say on either of them subjects, not because I cannot debate on the issue, but because the original intent of the thread sometimes goes into several different directions, and it is unfair to the original author of the thread.
In the past I have been guilty of drifting off topic also, and am trying not to do so now.

quote Originally posted by Toddster:

Didn't I just read posts about failing to evolve with language? Case in point.

I'm more traveled than most, but hey, who's competing?

"And with all this opportunity to learn something you chose to hang out in the local brothels I suppose."

Sure, and I saw your ......, naw, I'll take the high road and let you remain in the middle of the low road here. Remember, keep telling us how those pesky Democrats are the ones causing the trouble on PFF. I'm sure your colleagues will back you, and that's all that counts.

"You clearly have NO IDEA what the rest of the world really thinks. "

And how do you support this not so constructive criticism? I do have very good intuition, so I think I do understand people and what motivates them.

"A sad waste of carbon molecules."

I won't call this typical Republican insulting rhetoric, as it's not fair to tag them with your handy work, but how can you ever accuse the Democratic PFF members of causing all the trouble and casting all the insults?

BTW, how is this Christmas for your book cover business?

"This is truly a great event in human history and the world will laud this accomplishment for generations. Way to go Mister President!"

This is an event that will settle in and become part of the bigger picture; terrorism and its impact the US. The catching of this murderer was necessary, but meaningless. Middle Eastern terrorism is still alive and well, proof of that occurred yesterday. I don't think the capture of Saddam spurred it, and I don't think the capture of Saddam will spoil it. Saddam was a threat 6 months ago, but hasn't been one since, so the capture of him just closes a book.

Terrorism is funded by many Arabic countries, including our buds the Saudis. Terrorism is backed by many Arabs, even the 'good' ones.

formula88: I just mean, who cares if you swear, the message is still there..

quote Originally posted by trailboss: [QUOTE]Originally posted by fierofetish: Bill Clinton's personal sexlife is nobody's business, and has no bearing on his ability to carry out His job.He also came across as a"Statesman" with a powerful aura, and POLITICAL integrity, commanding respect from both supporters and opposition.

I won't even waste my time...[/QUOTE]

Thank you

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: PS Carlc, if you read Fierobear's reply, you might notice by agreeing with him, you have made yourself look rather silly, because HE WAS POINTING OUT THAT YOU HAVEN'T EVOLVED!!also, if you took the time to check on my location, you would notice that I am not in America,and finally say that your aspiration to Adult language falls miserably on its face...I hear many young and immature kids swearing their heads off to impress. but can hardly spell their own name, or string a grammatically correct sentence together.Correct use of the Queen's English can be more expressive than swearing, and not, as I pointed out already, a diversion from whatever possibly valid point your are trying to make.

Ahh, you misunderstood my reply, I was actually turning it round on you, did you not notice the wincky face?

I was stating that seeing as though you didn't take kindly to the use of my language you haven't evolved (devolved) along with the language.

I have no idea what statement Fierobear was making, but my guess would be a childish dis.

I have realised one good reason for keeping the language clean, and that is the fact that you guys just need the smallest excuse to run a thread into the ground, in the future I shall have my posts vetted by a group of my peers to ensure that I only give you the meat to chew, steering clear of the gristle that you guys like to occupy yourself with when you feel you might soon be on the back foot.

MERRY CHRISTMAS ONE & ALL!!!

Trailboss,
Thankyou for your response.I accept fully what you are saying.Living in Europe, we can only rely on biased media reportage, and I must point out that I did not say Bush was a fool, only that He comes over that way.I concede that because you live in the States, you are far more highly informed than we, and I can only listen and learn from your friendly enlightenment.I shall continue to brouse the PFF with interest, and therby learn as well.But no matter which Country you live in, trading insults and bad language don't impress me at all, and your well modulated response only serves to elevate you in my esteem, irrespective of your Political leanings.I do not promote re-distribution of wealth,unless the recipients are deserving, and the contributors are not.I am politically unbiased, and do also have the right to judge People as they appear, and if that appearance is at a direct result of their inability to communicate to the world their real meaning, then only they are to blame, not the people judging them.Also, irrespective of which Country we talk about, the Political system is flawed, because money and wealth control it, not reality and the general betterment of this world for all.
Respectfully,
fierofetish

quote Originally posted by I'm Back: but how can you ever accuse the Democratic PFF members of causing all the trouble and casting all the insults?

Look at your rating bar.

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: I do not promote re-distribution of wealth,unless the recipients are deserving, and the contributors are not.

The problem is, the really strong liberals seem to think that everyone without money is deserving and everyone with money is not.

quote Originally posted by Carlc: And didn't you just contradict yourself in that post?

I don't think so. I am not saying swearing should be COMPLETELY eliminated. We sometimes need a jolt to keep our attention. But there is a big difference between 1 profane word per 100 posts and 100 profane words per 1 post. At some point, the listener simply tunes-out.

quote Originally posted by Steve Normington: The problem is, the really strong liberals seem to think that everyone without money is deserving and everyone with money is not.

That's a good point, Steve... It does seem that Conservatives are trying to keep what they've got, while Liberals are trying to get what they haven't got...

What is really a shame though is how EVERY post, regardless or subject, comes back to the same senseless partisan political banter and name calling that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand. We should just change the subject name on the old threads and save Cliff some bandwidth.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Look at your rating bar.

And I was going to point to that attribute and the fallacious nature of it that you count on. See, I can find far more insulting from you and some other conservatives than I can find from more liberal members. Any statistician could easily extrapolate that a generally proportionate component exists between open conservatism and positive ratings. Besides, the rating system is inherently flawed, as I imagine that many of the negatives are from closed Internet accounts or inactive members. Some people have 2 or more accounts as well. The rating system is in place for a couple reasons, the primary one being to warn people if their language/behavior is too egregious. In the early days it works well and it still does work to a degree if you compare it to the past, but the problem has exacerbated in that it has become a political/religious barometer. If someone’s same-side bud tells someone on the other side to FO, that person’s rating remains positive.

The really harmful side of the rating system has come to age; the open conservatives/religious with positive ratings, which accounts for most/all, look at their rating bar, see it predominantly green and figure they must be in line even when their behavior is obviously grossly out of line. That kind of logic is tantamount to looking at your checkbook and seeing more checks, then deducing you must have more money in your account without actually looking at the balance.

The other harmful side of the equation is that if a so-called liberal (who most likely has a red bar regardless of behavior) gets attacked and strikes back when he usually doesn’t behave that way, members like Toddster are quick to point out that the person is a trouble-maker as present by his red bar.

This to Cliff: the rating system has become a way not to evaluate your member’s behavior, but a way to value them.

quote Originally posted by I'm Back: This to Cliff: the rating system has become a way not to evaluate your member’s behavior, but a way to value them.

I think you better figure out a way to increase your value around here, fast.......

[This message has been edited by Lex (edited 12-16-2003).]

Notice that it is always the people who start the most crap and have red bars that complain about the ratings system. Then of course, they chalk up what they reap from their bad behavior to this being a 'conservative forum'. What they may fail to realize is that this may in fact be a conservative world, not just a forum.

Anyway... I see that this thread is turning more and more into the USUAL, instead of being on the subject at hand. Of course, it is hard for those red-barred Liberals to spin this to their benefit so of course they have to veil it with big words and changed subjects. Luckily, no one is fooled. One more goal has been met in the war against terror. Good job to the armed forces and the Commander in Chief!

quote Originally posted by I'm Back: And I was going to point to that attribute and the fallacious nature of it that you count on.

Why is it that only Red Bars think the rating bar sucks? Hmmm.

IB, I can only speak for myself but I have never given anyone a negative rating because of his politics, faith, or any other irrelevant reason. I TOTALLY disagree with JL and Stimpy on political issues. I still like them since they add value to the site.

To me, the rating serves two purposes: To point out with deep green the people on this site that add the most value in terms of Fiero Advice, General Advice, or just plain ole' Good Will. And secondly to point out with deep red those who add no value but actually detract from the promotion of Fiero care and customizing with innaccurate and malicious advice, hurl personal insults, and generally waste bandwidth.

You fall into the latter category.

quote Originally posted by Spektrum-87GT: I think that it is very unfair to say that liberals are "desperate" or trying to find ways to bring the republicans down. I am an EXTREME liberal and am very happy that he was captured. I'm not going to take anything away from the Republicans for his capture, but I don't think they should be taking the credit for it. It was the soldiers who risk their lives in Iraq that captured him. It's also not fair to say that liberals would not do anything to protect national security. We were never attacked under Bill Clinton and to say that he set us up for 9/11 is unfair because there is no proof to back that statement up. If you don't believe Democrats will go to war. During WW1 and WW2, we had democatic presidents. Republicans are so quick to say that Democrats will not do anything if we get attacked or need to go to war. There are no facts that back that up. You cannot say "because Clinton didn't act against terrorists". I hate to break this fact to you, but neither did Bush before 9/11, so the point is moot. Anyway, this is a great day for America in general, not a great day for one political party over another.

It may have already been done but let me point out a few errors in your facts here...

As a matter of fact, we were attacked numerous times under Clinton. Nothing to the scope of 9/11 for sure but the only thing we have that even comes close to that in our history is Pearl Harbor. The fact is that Americans were attacked, both at home and abroad, on Clinton's watch and all he did was make some speeches and flap his arms about it.

Please, please, please, please, please, don't try to compare the Clinton's to any of the great Democratic Presidents in our country's past. The only similarities there are the (D) beside his name on the ballot. Another good thing back then was that when America went to war, we didn't have all the traitors here at home pulling for the other side. Americans all stood together then even if they didn't understand or agree with everything.. Even if some of our country's sons had to die to keep our country strong.

Lastly, were you a part of this country when we attacked on 9/11? Awful, wasn't it? Do you know why President Bush hadn't done anything about terrorism prior to this? He had only been in office 9 months and he was too busy trying to help our nation recover from that ridiculous election that almost killed our economy. He had already made strong statements that terrorism would not be tolerated. He was just busy handling more pressing issues prior to 9/11.

This last paragraph is not pointed at you but others who know who they are...
I've said it many times and no one ever responds. President Bush is under attack for going against the UN and getting this done. His daddy was under attack for not doing it (although he wanted to but political pressure stopped him from bucking the UN). As stated many many times in many many threads... Seems that some people can't be pleased! That's why we always figure that there must be some other cause of bitterness in your life and you just have to vent it here on the forum, and blame the Bushes for all of your problems...

To close, I will say that, despite what some red-bar liberals will try to make you believe, it is a great day for not only America, but the world... But yes, it is also a great day for a Republican President who did what he said he was going to do. So the people who kept saying "Where's Saddam? I thought Bush was going to get him..." It seems like instead of changing their arguments now they would just say "Good job!", but that would be too far out of character for them. The stories always change when they are proven wrong. Just go back through this thread and see how many turns certain people's stories have taken from their original course.

[This message has been edited by Songman (edited 12-16-2003).]

quote Originally posted by Songman: It may have already been done but let me point out a few errors in your facts here... As a matter of fact, we were attacked numerous times under Clinton. Nothing to the scope of 9/11 for sure but the only thing we have that even comes close to that in our history is Pearl Harbor. The fact is that Americans were attacked, both at home and abroad, on Clinton's watch and all he did was make some speeches and flap his arms about it. Please, please, please, please, please, don't try to compare the Clinton's to any of the great Democratic Presidents in our country's past. The only similarities there are the (D) beside his name on the ballot. Another good thing back then was that when America went to war, we didn't have all the traitors here at home pulling for the other side. Americans all stood together then even if they didn't understand or agree with everything.. Even if some of our country's sons had to die to keep our country strong. Lastly, were you a part of this country when we attacked on 9/11? Awful, wasn't it? Do you know why President Bush hadn't done anything about terrorism prior to this? He had only been in office 9 months and he was too busy trying to help our nation recover from that ridiculous election that almost killed our economy. He had already made strong statements that terrorism would not be tolerated. He was just busy handling more pressing issues prior to 9/11. This last paragraph is not pointed at you but others who know who they are... I've said it many times and no one ever responds. President Bush is under attack for going against the UN and getting this done. His daddy was under attack for not doing it (although he wanted to but political pressure stopped him from bucking the UN). As stated many many times in many many threads... Seems that some people can't be pleased! That's why we always figure that there must be some other cause of bitterness in your life and you just have to vent it here on the forum, and blame the Bushes for all of your problems... To close, I will say that, despite what some red-bar liberals will try to make you believe, it is a great day for not only America, but the world... But yes, it is also a great day for a Republican President who did what he said he was going to do. So the people who kept saying "Where's Saddam? I thought Bush was going to get him..." It seems like instead of changing their arguments now they would just say "Good job!", but that would be too far out of character for them. The stories always change when they are proven wrong. Just go back through this thread and see how many turns certain people's stories have taken from their original course.

I would like to go on record as saying that I do not consider FDR or Wilson "Great" presidents. Historians may disagree with me. Wilson wrote a book on the history of America that praised the KKK and was the basis for the movie Birth of a Nation. FDR effectively removed us from the Gold Standard in 1933 prolonging our depression and jailed American citizens of Japanese descent during WWII for no reason. High Crimes and Misdemeanors to be sure.

Jefferon was a great Democratic President, so was Polk, and Truman, and so was Kennedy (yeah, I really believe that in spite of his personal short comings). But FDR and Wilson? Racists and poor administrators both.

[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 12-16-2003).]

Woodrow Wilson caused half the problems that we as a world are dealing with today. He rewrote the borders that are in dispute, and when he did so, he didn't take into consideration ethnic ties of the people that he was combining into a country which is why you have a country like Iraq that is an amalgamation of people that hate each other. Thats why I cringe when people speak of the great attoscity of Saddam gassing his own people. He didn't. Its still unspeakable, don't get me wrong, but the Kurds aren't his own people. No one likes the Kurds.

Then we can discuss his 14 points which paved the way for WWII in my humble opinion.

No, Wilson was not a great president.

I'll say it once and I'll say it again...

"FINALLY...GOOD RIDDANCE TO THE IRAQUIAN SCUMBAG!"

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

"The PRE10DR"
AIM: JeffSocha

Don't get off track, guys... I wasn't naming particular Presidents... Just trying to point out a very general, and very incorrect statement in another thread.