How about this?

DogDoc · Post by **DogDoc** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 4:44 pm

Backglass wrote:
P Gizzle wrote:it's the constitution.....don't blame bush....
That's right...he's just the guy who walks all over it.

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a goddamned piece of paper" - George W. Bush (as reported by several white house aids.)

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/p ... 7779.shtml

Nice, credible source of information there.

An unsubstantiated rumor started by someone with an axe to grind. Do you think for a second that if there were any validity to this that it wouldn't have been splashed across the front pages of the New York Times or as a lead-in for the Dan Rather Show? The media in this country never miss an opportunity to embarass Bush.

strike wolf · Post by **strike wolf** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 1:41 am

heavycola wrote:
DogDoc wrote:
rathersane wrote: Anyway, my opinion? I've been pissed since he stole the election in the coup of 2000. What's even worse is that when Milosevic tried to do that a month earlier, his entire country erupted and he had to step down. This means that as of 2000, Serbia is more politically mature than America is, especially since the rioters in Belgrade returned everything they looted the following day.
"Coup?" "Stole?" Take that rhetorical bullshit and shove it. Please enlighten us as to how Bush accomplished this coup. Do you mean the close results in Florida? The results that were confirmed by independent recounts done by several newspaper organizations in Florida after the elections were over? There was no "coup" and I find it highly offensive that you suggest otherwise, likening the U.S. to a third world country or a banana republic. The United States is governed by the U.S. Constitution, the greatest living document in the world, and it prevailed, keeping our republic intact.

Yay! An election awarded to the guy who got the least number of votes by a few judges who shared his political viewpoint! And after a scandalous series of episodes - disenfranchisement of minorities for one - in a state governed by HIS BROTHER!

Yes, god bless the greatest, most superbadass country that has ever existed in the world ever.

:sniff:

you act like he's the first person to win the popular vote but see the other man elected. I know of at least 2 others and there maybe more. Look Bush won on a controversial decision, Gore threw a hissy fit, get over it. Crying about the past doesn't achieve anything.

DIRESTRAITS · Post by **DIRESTRAITS** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 1:46 am

Its about time Bush played tough in Iraq. Everyone wants us to wave our magic wands and make it go away, but war doesn't work like that. As for those of you who just want to appease the Arabs, I want to remind you that thats precisly what Europe did with Hitler in the 30s. Just something to ponder

spring1 · Post by **spring1** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 9:12 am

IMO, sending in 20,000 troops is sorta like exchanging your pail of water for a garden hose in trying to extinguish a 5 alarm fire. 200,000 would be more realistic...unfortunately, I don't see where the US has the available troops without utilizing the draft option...
Instead of continually bashing Bush, I would like to hear opinion's on what YOU would do in Bush's position. Don't come back with historical rhetoric such as, "well, I wouldn't have gone to war in the first place...". There's no point crying over spilled milk. I would like to hear how some people in this thread would clean it up.

DIRESTRAITS · Post by **DIRESTRAITS** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 3:33 pm

spring1 wrote:IMO, sending in 20,000 troops is sorta like exchanging your pail of water for a garden hose in trying to extinguish a 5 alarm fire. 200,000 would be more realistic...unfortunately, I don't see where the US has the available troops without utilizing the draft option...
Instead of continually bashing Bush, I would like to hear opinion's on what YOU would do in Bush's position. Don't come back with historical rhetoric such as, "well, I wouldn't have gone to war in the first place...". There's no point crying over spilled milk. I would like to hear how some people in this thread would clean it up.

I agree with you, we should put even more troops int Iraq. I think the Administration should up troop numbers, start putting restrictions on Iraqis, like making gun ownership illegal, andsplit Iraq into three countries, one for the Kurds, one for the Sunnis, and one for the Shiites

DIRESTRAITS · Post by **DIRESTRAITS** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 3:33 pm

spring1 wrote:IMO, sending in 20,000 troops is sorta like exchanging your pail of water for a garden hose in trying to extinguish a 5 alarm fire. 200,000 would be more realistic...unfortunately, I don't see where the US has the available troops without utilizing the draft option...
Instead of continually bashing Bush, I would like to hear opinion's on what YOU would do in Bush's position. Don't come back with historical rhetoric such as, "well, I wouldn't have gone to war in the first place...". There's no point crying over spilled milk. I would like to hear how some people in this thread would clean it up.

I agree with you, we should put even more troops int Iraq. I think the Administration should up troop numbers, start putting restrictions on Iraqis, like making gun ownership illegal, andsplit Iraq into three countries, one for the Kurds, one for the Sunnis, and one for the Shiites

Genghis Khant · Post by **Genghis Khant** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 3:56 pm

DIRESTRAITS wrote:....I think the Administration should ... start putting restrictions on Iraqis, like making gun ownership illegal....

I think they should try making gun ownership illegal in the US too.

Backglass · Post by **Backglass** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 4:02 pm

DogDoc wrote:Nice, credible source of information there. An unsubstantiated rumor started by someone with an axe to grind.

Possibly...but I also wouldnt put it past him. I truly believe he is now just a drunk-with-power yahoo who will do whatever HE wants, regardless of what the people of the United States want.

Where there's smoke...there's fire.

edmundomcpot · Post by **edmundomcpot** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 5:16 pm

DIRESTRAITS wrote:I agree with you, we should put even more troops int Iraq. I think the Administration should up troop numbers, start putting restrictions on Iraqis, like making gun ownership illegal, andsplit Iraq into three countries, one for the Kurds, one for the Sunnis, and one for the Shiites

splitting the country up would acheive a good side but a greater bad side

good side: all types have their own government/country
saddams country/regime is gone for good
u.s get oil from 3 countries

Bad side: submitting to extremists
fighting wouldnt end..one of the groups at least would want control of the whole area
could easily lead to three dictatorships as the groups look for a strong leader..in the end we would of achieved nothing

im sure for the more politically minded you could think of more things to add to both sides...splitting a country never works anyway e.g. germany

i think bush is right sending in more troops..but just more troops wont acheive anything they need to make a more active effort in finding the extremists leaders

he also desperatly needs to find Bin Laden..i have this theory he might be egging them on and supplying them in some way or another...either way hes somene they'd look up to

Caleb the Cruel · Post by **Caleb the Cruel** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 10:40 pm

I am in support of sending more troops to Iraq at this point.
The strategy is also changing somewhat, which will hopefully help. Bush has shifted around some major military generals and other positions to execute the new strategy.
However the strategy and troop surge had better help soon, before the E12l34i56s of 2007 & 2008 occur, or else the whole world is in more danger.

b.k. barunt · Post by **b.k. barunt** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:20 pm

I have watched this wanker rape our constitution while his supporters waved their flags and cheered. I watched New Orleans drown while he did nothing and marvel at the tenacity (stubborn ignorance in its most hideous form) of New Orleanians who still support him. The only thing more stupid (stupider) than a Bush fan is a Saints fan. But the worst thing about that little wanker in the white house is HIS PHONY FREAKIN DOWN HOME TEXAS ACCENT!!! And the worst of his entourage are the religious flag wavers with the flags attached to their Bibles so they can wave both at the same time! Caleb you've probably read your Bible as much as you have your constitution, cause that wanker has raped them both.

jay_a2j · Post by **jay_a2j** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:46 pm

b.k. barunt wrote:I have watched this wanker rape our constitution while his supporters waved their flags and cheered. I watched New Orleans drown while he did nothing and marvel at the tenacity (stubborn ignorance in its most hideous form) of New Orleanians who still support him. The only thing more stupid (stupider) than a Bush fan is a Saints fan. But the worst thing about that little wanker in the white house is HIS PHONY FREAKIN DOWN HOME TEXAS ACCENT!!! And the worst of his entourage are the religious flag wavers with the flags attached to their Bibles so they can wave both at the same time! Caleb you've probably read your Bible as much as you have your constitution, cause that wanker has raped them both.

My God this idiocy is annoying! It is NOT the President's job to look out for natural disasters and be the fricken blame when people die! N.O. was a total screw up, not of George W. Bush but of the Democratic Govenor and Major! Guess Bush was supposed to fly down to N.O. and drive one of the hundred or so school busses himself, that just sat there as the city flooded. Who could be so stupid as to think it was the MAJORS responcibility to use whatever means nessisary to SAVE LIVES! Or go further up the chain of command to the GOVENOR! This whole thing was used pollitically to condemn Bush..... yet the two who were actually responcible get off scott free!

I'm not a Big fan of Bush. But my God! Put the blame where the blame is to go!

millej11 · Post by **millej11** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:47 pm

Genghis Khant wrote:
DIRESTRAITS wrote:....I think the Administration should ... start putting restrictions on Iraqis, like making gun ownership illegal....
I think they should try making gun ownership illegal in the US too.

I hope you're kidding

MeDeFe · Post by **MeDeFe** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:38 pm

I hope he's not, I mean, What the hell do you need a sub-machine gun for? Definitely not for hunting.

millej11 · Post by **millej11** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:55 pm

Banning guns and banning automatic firearms are a completely different thing. I am for banning all automatic and semiautomatic heavy firearms, but not all guns. That would be silly

2dimes · Post by **2dimes** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:04 pm

I'm for banning all weapons everywhere but that's a eutopian ideal so there's really no point in bringing it up.

I have much better chance of asking random strangers for $7billion and an airplane and getting it.

Genghis Khant · Post by **Genghis Khant** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 6:12 pm

millej11 wrote:
Genghis Khant wrote:
DIRESTRAITS wrote:....I think the Administration should ... start putting restrictions on Iraqis, like making gun ownership illegal....
I think they should try making gun ownership illegal in the US too.
I hope you're kidding

No, I'm being serious here, although I'm not talking about a 100% ban. Air rifles are good for sport and shotguns are good for hunting and essential for farmers. What should be banned are automatic weapons, hand guns, high calibre rifles and anything of a military grade.

Bertros Bertros · Post by **Bertros Bertros** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 6:52 pm

DogDoc wrote:I love all these non-Americans commenting on American politics when they don't have a freakin' clue what they're talking about.

That is most amusing considering the volume of posts from Americans concerning politics outside of America that show up on this forum, indeed in this thread.

Please do not condescend your 'allies' over the pond. Just because we don't live in America doesn't mean we don't know what we're talking about. Its a small world these days with online subscriptions to US newspapers, CNN etc on our TVs not to mention the independant reports in other national press. Just because the subject matter is not as close to our hearts does not imply we are less informed.

b.k. barunt · Post by **b.k. barunt** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 2:44 am

[jay__a2j writes:

My God this idiocy is annoying! It is NOT the President's job to look out for natural disasters and be the fricken blame when people die! N.O. was a total screw up, not of George W. Bush but of the Democratic Govenor and Major! Guess Bush was supposed to fly down to N.O. and drive one of the hundred or so school busses himself, that just sat there as the city flooded. Who could be so stupid as to think it was the MAJORS responcibility to use whatever means nessisary to SAVE LIVES! Or go further up the chain of command to the GOVENOR! This whole thing was used pollitically to condemn Bush..... yet the two who were actually responcible get off scott free!

Not the president's job to watch out for natural disasters? Anyone still looking for a good example of Bush lovers' mental capacity?

Jesse, Bad Boy · Post by **Jesse, Bad Boy** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 3:04 am

MeDeFe wrote:I hope he's not, I mean, What the hell do you need a sub-machine gun for? Definitely not for hunting.

What about protecting yourself from a dictatorial government? Pardon the Godwin, but one of the first things taken from citizens were their gun rights in Nazi Germany.

When I buy guns, I buy them not for hunting, but for general protection from an ever increasingly hostile government.

Jesse, Bad Boy · Post by **Jesse, Bad Boy** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 3:07 am

DIRESTRAITS wrote:I agree with you, we should put even more troops int Iraq.

For what? So we can create more targets, especially right after we just made a dictator a martyr? Oh yeah, really fucking brilliant planning on that one.

start putting restrictions on Iraqis, like making gun ownership illegal,

Wait, wut? You mean enforcing draconian laws in a nation we had no jurisdiction being in to begin with? Limiting the abilities of Iraqis to protect themselves if and when we pull out of that god awful mess?

andsplit Iraq into three countries, one for the Kurds, one for the Sunnis, and one for the Shiites

.... creating more of a mess than we already have. Brilliant.