sextacy911 Posted June 29 Report Share Posted June 29 Listen, we all want the best for our country but we just have different views on how to lead it... its nothing to start a fight about... Yes, at one point we did aid Saddam and Osama with weapons, but the second we do something out of their will, they fly planes into our buildings... I'm sorry but as the powerhouse of the world, I believe we have to fight back... If you believe Saddam had nothing to do with Osama and his crew, you are entitled to your opinion... but I believe Saddam had to go down one way or another... I really believe he had connections with Al-Quaida and in one way or another helped with 9/11... Again, thats my opinion based on everything I read... Setting up an American-friendly government in the Middle East is a BIG plus for us in the future... If countries see Afghanistan and Iraq as a Democratic nation, others will follow... I mean, who woulda though Afghanistan would be having an election? .. Well, they are... Once again, this is just the way I see things... you can agree, oppose, its up to you... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blumpkin Posted June 29 Report Share Posted June 29 all i have to say is that kerry is going to spank bush come november just like clinton spanked bush sr. oh yeah, michael moore is a genius.john kerry is a fucking moron!!!!!!!! this country is SCREWED if he wins the electionand michael moore is a fuckin scumbag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choptrop Posted June 29 Report Share Posted June 29 Now now children, play nice.. Back to the original question though.. Movie raised a lot of questions, espescially about the planes used during 9/11.. How many were actually hijacked?? How many did the Air Force shoot down?? Hmmm... Not that I agree with everything Michael Moore says, he does raise some very interesting questions.. Bottom line..OK movie...For a documentary... Kill 'Em All-Let God Sort 'Em Out!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mindfaqd Posted June 29 Report Share Posted June 29 ok, I let this go for a little while cuz I thought it was a movie review (this is a media board, not just music) but now that it has disintergrated into a political debate, its gotta be moved. This thread is going nowhere fast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fresinha12 Posted June 29 Report Share Posted June 29 I agree that Kerry wont be any better than bush....as for the movie, I noticed ppl were talking after the movie that the movie didnt answer some question they had in mind before they came to watch, and here is my take the movie is not meant to answer questions ppl might have, but the audience should leave the theater with more questions then they had before they watched the movie...haha wait til kerry gets voted in Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fresinha12 Posted June 29 Report Share Posted June 29 Ok, which lie is worse and got a president impeached?" I did not have sexual relations with that woman, monica lewinsky"or" Iraq posses Weapons of mass destruction, posses a threat to the international community, iraq has links with terrorist organizations..."One lie caused a near failure of a marrige ....the other costed over 800 US soldiers to die.....and left countless children orphaned..Please put things in perspective.....Bush:Liberated 2 countriesCut taxesCaught Saddam and killed 2 sons(This list can go on forever)Clinton:Put his hand on The Bible and LIED to the American public... need I say more?January 26, 1998 "... I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time – never ..." - President Bill ClintonAugust 17, 1998 "... Indeed, I did have a relationship with Ms. Lewinsky that was not appropriate ..." - President Bill ClintonSay something... I dare you... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmatas2277 Posted June 29 Report Share Posted June 29 Clinton was responsible for pushing through NAFTA (something the GOP likes to claim on their own) despite opposition by his own party. He brought Arafat and Rabin to the meeting table to discuss peace (it didnt work thanks to Arafat, but Clinton did organize the first peace talks between Israel and the PLO). He brought peace to Northern Ireland, and stopped ethnic clensing in the Balkans.1) Clinton took credit for the great economy during his presidency which was actually due to the Partnership with America Bill that was created and passed by a Republican Congress...2) Libya has dismantled its WMD's programs and is allowing UN weapons inspectors in...3) Bush's economy is growing at historical ALL TIME high...this election is the worse for me...i am still on the fence this year...i guess the debates will help my decision process...i hope... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmatas2277 Posted June 29 Report Share Posted June 29 " Iraq posses Weapons of mass destruction, posses a threat to the international community, iraq has links with terrorist organizations..."Clinton...Gore....all said the same things....Clinton during his presidency and Gore during the debates with Bush II....CIA was the problem...plain and simple...we went to war on EXTREMELY bad intelligence...now we know... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fresinha12 Posted June 29 Report Share Posted June 29 yeah, well either way one got impeached, why not impeach the other one for a lie too? aint that what "high crimes" supposed to mean?Clinton...Gore....all said the same things....Clinton during his presidency and Gore during the debates with Bush II....CIA was the problem...plain and simple...we went to war on EXTREMELY bad intelligence...now we know... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigpoppanils Posted June 29 Report Share Posted June 29 yeah, well either way one got impeached, why not impeach the other one for a lie too? aint that what "high crimes" supposed to mean?Clinton lied under oath. Bush did not.Huge difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmatas2277 Posted June 29 Report Share Posted June 29 yeah, well either way one got impeached, why not impeach the other one for a lie too? aint that what "high crimes" supposed to mean?ummmm...who got impeached? ...Clinton never got impeached...the worse thing that happened to him was he was disbarred from the bar in Ark....again if u can PROVE that Bush lied, then i am all for him getting impeached...but b/c he used bad intelligence? nah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fresinha12 Posted June 29 Report Share Posted June 29 My friend, technically speaking the state of the union address is under oath, i.e under the oath take when the president is sworn in....technicalities matter, its wht law is all about.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fresinha12 Posted June 29 Report Share Posted June 29 clinton was impeached by the lower house, the senate censured him....pls get ur facts right....bad intelligence or not a non factual statement means a lie, excuses dont explain lies, you maybe made a mistake but u did lie.....ummmm...who got impeached? ...Clinton never got impeached...the worse thing that happened to him was he was disbarred from the bar in Ark.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmatas2277 Posted June 29 Report Share Posted June 29 My friend, technically speaking the state of the union address is under oath, i.e under the oath take when the president is sworn in....LOL...once again, if u can prove that Bush LIED then yes...but if ur going to call him a liar b/c the CIA didnt know what was going on, then u lose my support to impeach ANY president... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmatas2277 Posted June 29 Report Share Posted June 29 clinton was impeached by the lower house, the senate censured him....pls get ur facts right....bro...he was never impeached...dont confuse terms bro...dont play on words, ur better than that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmatas2277 Posted June 29 Report Share Posted June 29 February 12, 1999: President Clinton is acquitted of the two articles of impeachment. Rejecting the first charge of perjury, 10 Republicans and all 45 Democrats vote "not guilty." On the charge of obstruction of justice, the Senate is split 50-50. Afterward, Clinton says he is "profoundly sorry" for the burden he imposed on the Congress and the American peoplehttp://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/resources/1998/lewinsky/dont play on words bro...doesnt become u... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fresinha12 Posted June 29 Report Share Posted June 29 He was impeached by the congress, the president has to relinquish office only if the senate rectifies the congress's vote, in this case the senate did not ractify the impeachment and thus the voted to censure him....that is why I said he was impeached by the lower house, censured by the senate....I did not play with words, i simply stated the facts.http://www.freedaily.com/articles/000414n1.htmlBTW on your statement below: the senate voted 55-54 against perjury charges.... inorder to force the president out of office the senate needed a 2/3 majority vote to impeach him out of office!February 12, 1999: President Clinton is acquitted of the two articles of impeachment. Rejecting the first charge of perjury, 10 Republicans and all 45 Democrats vote "not guilty." On the charge of obstruction of justice, the Senate is split 50-50. Afterward, Clinton says he is "profoundly sorry" for the burden he imposed on the Congress and the American peoplehttp://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/resources/1998/lewinsky/dont play on words bro...doesnt become u... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fresinha12 Posted June 29 Report Share Posted June 29 He was impeached by the congress, the president has to relinquish office only if the senate rectifies the congress's vote, in this case the senate did not ractify the impeachment and thus the voted to censure him....that is why I said he was impeached by the lower house, censured by the senate....I did not play with words, i simply stated the facts.http://www.freedaily.com/articles/000414n1.htmlBTW on your statement below: the senate voted 55-54 against perjury charges.... inorder to force the president out of office the senate needed a 2/3 majority vote to impeach him out of office!February 12, 1999: President Clinton is acquitted of the two articles of impeachment. Rejecting the first charge of perjury, 10 Republicans and all 45 Democrats vote "not guilty." On the charge of obstruction of justice, the Senate is split 50-50. Afterward, Clinton says he is "profoundly sorry" for the burden he imposed on the Congress and the American peoplehttp://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/resources/1998/lewinsky/dont play on words bro...doesnt become u... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normalnoises Posted June 30 Report Share Posted June 30 He is a douchebag, should stand behind the leader when at war. Clinton caused all this sh*t in the first placeDid you stand behind clinton when he bombed the Balkans? Did you stand behind clinton when he conducted weekly bombings in Iraq? And since when there is a "law" that requires EVERYONE to stand behind a president (Bush Jr.) during wartime? I see freedom of speech avades you or you'd rather see a dictatorship where anyone who "dissents" upon Bush and disagrees with his foreign policy should be shot. The latter is more like your speed. Hell! It would not even surprise me you would support martial law.Quoting the words of Thomas Jefferson:“Dissent is the highest form of patriotismâ€. - Thomas Jefferson Does that make Thomas Jefferson an "America hater"? A terrorist?You know, dissent is what brought this country to it's birth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghhhhhost Posted June 30 Report Share Posted June 30 3) Bush's economy is growing at historical ALL TIME high... well since the economy was ripped to shit when BUsh took over its not surprising he had such staggering growth...its like a fuckin 500lb person losing 150lbs...that aint shit...it's easy to pat urself on the back for improving something that was shot to shit.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghhhhhost Posted June 30 Report Share Posted June 30 3) Bush's economy is growing at historical ALL TIME high... well since the economy was ripped to shit when BUsh took over its not surprising he had such staggering growth...its like a fuckin 500lb person losing 150lbs...that aint shit...it's easy to pat urself on the back for improving something that was shot to shit.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmatas2277 Posted June 30 Report Share Posted June 30 well since the economy was ripped to shit when BUsh took over its not surprising he had such staggering growth...its like a fuckin 500lb person losing 150lbs...that aint shit...it's easy to pat urself on the back for improving something that was shot to shit..no entiendo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted June 30 Report Share Posted June 30 well since the economy was ripped to shit when BUsh took over its not surprising he had such staggering growth...its like a fuckin 500lb person losing 150lbs...that aint shit...it's easy to pat urself on the back for improving something that was shot to shit..SO, when Bush took office, his economic policies had an immediate negative impact on the economy? That is some brilliant insight by you. You are like a Greenspan Jr.The economy immediately and instantaneously spiraled downward and was "shot to shit" by Bush, and had nothing to do with what was inherited, the actual condition of the economy in 2000, real economic indicators and analysis, and then some "other" circumstances? Let's hope "other" does need to be defined for youMaybe the Bush team, conspiring with the Israeli's, had some magic potion that as soon as Bush took office, they would kill the economy, only so that when the election nears, any improvement in the economy will look good...Some Middle East media outlets are reporting that Michael Moore has a top-secret document he got his hands on called: " its like a fuckin 500lb person losing 150lbs"....that details this devious strategy by the Bush and Sharon teams.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fresinha12 Posted June 30 Report Share Posted June 30 You got to put things in perspective, Clinton was'nt exactly responsible for the boom in economy it was in some part triggered by the internet bubble, that bubble bursted as it should have because it was all based on fraud, and yes clinton let this fraud continue by passing the the telecom act of 96!Bush on the other hand has'nt done much to help the economy, he has increased the debt to record level, this is very dangerous in the long term to our economy, he has squandered whatever surplus we had on a stupid tax cut for the rich and the iraq war....what he should have done was spend the surplus on the economy by increasing govt spending on domestic goods, he should have reined in the chinese by imposing tariffs on chinese exports since the damn commies dont have a free market.In summary, both men are stupid and crooks, we should be trying both these son of a bitches in court for their man-handling of the US govt.believe me, its not just bush its also clinton who is responsible for this mess, I agree with igloo that clinton too used iraq for unjustified attacks and is responsible for killing innocent ppl in sudan and afghanistan and iraq, when he bombed some pharama factory.....so I say we should prosecute clinton and bush, since both have bloods on their hands and have caused american ppl monetary losses......SO, when Bush took office, his economic policies had an immediate negative impact on the economy? That is some brilliant insight by you. You are like a Greenspan Jr.The economy immediately and instantaneously spiraled downward and was "shot to shit" by Bush, and had nothing to do with what was inherited, the actual condition of the economy in 2000, real economic indicators and analysis, and then some "other" circumstances? Let's hope "other" does need to be defined for youMaybe the Bush team, conspiring with the Israeli's, had some magic potion that as soon as Bush took office, they would kill the economy, only so that when the election nears, any improvement in the economy will look good...Some Middle East media outlets are reporting that Michael Moore has a top-secret document he got his hands on called: " its like a fuckin 500lb person losing 150lbs"....that details this devious strategy by the Bush and Sharon teams.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigpoppanils Posted June 30 Report Share Posted June 30 i dont deny that the Bush tax cuts helped the economy, but I believe that the Federal Reserve deserves much more credit than Bush does for reviving the economy.i also believe that the tax cuts were fiscally irresponsible, considering that we were already involved in one military action, planning another, and fighting off terrorists around the world when the tax cuts were passed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.