Wiki:
Page name: Bush Haters Association [Logged in view] [RSS]
2008-12-19 22:01:11
Last author: Lord Kügenheim
Owner: Lord Kügenheim
# of watchers: 59
Fans: 0
D20: 15
Bookmark and Share

BUSH HATERS ASSOCIATION


<img:http://www.freewebtown.com/TwistedNet/Bush1.jpg>


Do YOU hate President George W. Bush? Well we do too!

Message [Goldice] or [Dil*] if you want to join the oldest and biggest Anti-Bush wiki on Elftown.




<img:http://www.elftown.com/img/drawing/14077_1101093715.jpg>
This wiki is a safe zone




Bush Haters Association Mission Statement

The Bush Haters Association strives to create a safe environment for all the peoples of the world to come gather and discuss world politics and related matters without fear of ridicule, harassment or other forms of discrimination. We hope to create and Idiot-Free zone where anyone can post a mature, sensible and serious question and get an equally mature, sensible and serious answer in return.
If you don't like what is said don't stay. We hope you can make your own mind up about which politicians you support. We will not force you to hate Bush, Do not force us not to.




[Do not use the banner at the top of the page in your house, it will just get deleted]
<*IMG:http://www.elftown.com/img/drawing/27888_1099588793.jpg*>
I'm a Member of the [Bush Haters Association@*wiki]



ETBHA. ESTd: 8/4/2004



FORUM: <URL:view_forum.html?forumnr=-1104>



Areas

Could everyone try to check these pages regularly to keep up to date with whats happening in the Asociation.

Bush Haters Association - Members
Bush Haters Association - Rules
Bush Haters Association - Banners
Bush Haters Association - Volunteers
Bush Haters Association - Advertising
Bush Haters Association - Members Stuff
Argue About Bush Haters Association
Reasons Why We Hate Bush
Bush Haters Association-debate,discuss



NEWS

Wiki Destroyers
Due to some small minded idiots lame attempts to destroy this wiki, pages that were free to edit before are now passworded. If anyone wants to add something into a section; now you must message either Me or [Goldice] and we will add it for you. As for any wiki destroyers out there thinking of having a go at this page, Just hope the guards catch you first before I do...

Minor Notice...
Just a small note that we're almost at 300 members... Someone get making a banner or something...

Safe Zone
The Bush Haters Association is now a Safe Zone. I expect all members of the association to accept and acknowledge everyone's opinion who comes to this page and not to discriminate in any way or form against other people.

Banner Update
Recent banner problems have been fixed. The new banner code can be found at the top of the page. Can i remind all members to make sure their banner is kept up to date and works.

US Elections Result
Unfortunately George Bush won the 2004 American Elections after Senator Kerry Conceded defeat to president Bush on the telephone at 1600 Yesterday 3/11/04. Statements by Kerry and bush were being made at 1900 and 2000 GMT.



<img:http://www.elftown.com/img/drawing/27888_1099242327.jpg>

Omega Wiki Construction Group


Notice: The Password has been removed from this Wiki. It is now free for anyone to pick up as they will


Username (or number or email):

Password:

[kduncan]: Hitler wasn't vegetarian, he loved his seafood. People often think that a person who doesn't eat red meat is vegetarian, but a vegetarian is a person who doesn't eat the flesh of animals that were once alive.. and that includes the flesh of animals that live in the water.

[Dil*]: I've read some things that said hitler was not a vegetarian...he liked sausages alot apparently.

[forsakenangels]: Well that is a form of vegitarian (I live with one, I know). I think they call it poissitarian or something? a vegitarian who still eats fish. then theres poutirarian, who only eats chicked and other such birds.

[Meridotahma]: That still seems less so like a "vegetarian" or even a subclass of the discipline and more so like a style of food choice that just borders on the fringe of vegetarian, which is selective against all types of meat, as far as I can tell.

[forsakenangels]: Well thats true vegitarian... But vegitarian simply means you eat primarily vegatables. If you only eat one class of meat, and not al lthe other types of it, then you're still eating primarily vegatables.

[kduncan]: From Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Vegetarianism - the theory or practice of living on a diet made up of vegetables , fruits, grains, nuts, and sometimes eggs or dairy products. ie: not sometimes fish, not sometimes poultry, not sausage once in a while. It's a very common misconception that people who eat seafood are vegetarians, but they're not. I have a cousin who eats no red meat, though she eats poultry and seafood, and she considers herself a vegetarian.

[Meridotahma]: That is exactly how I had figured it, though I never actually went through the trouble of bothering to research the exact meaning of vegetarian. I am such an unmotivated fellow.

[forsakenangels]: Well 'chikitarian' is an actual term, was on 'who wants to be a millionare', and i believe the question was 'what is the name for a vegetarian who still eats poulty in thier diet?'

[forsakenangels]: (not sure if it's spelled right, or if the definiition is word for word, but it's pretty close lol)

[BarleySinger]: There is way to much "consumerism as a lifestyle" in the 1st world. The problem is that every time something is produced, the materials come from someplace and the waste goes someplace. This means that when dirty science is used (the modern world is entirely built on dirty science...petrochemicals, chlorine and benzene compounds, etc) the result is very dirty waste products, and the use of a lot of energy that gets taken out with no thought to where it came from or how it can be out back into the world. AND - There is no magical place called "away". There is anothe type of scince called "biomimicry" which is more cost effective, faster and not dirty...but it still in its infancy.

[BarleySinger]: To make matters worse, the western world is based on the wierd idea that endless growth is possible and desirable. Government economists actually believe that people can produce and consume and ravage their environment, and throw "away" trash forever and ever and it will all work out OK in a mystical "somehow" in which there are no limits to resources. I wish I were joking. Economist and governments are so attached to this illogic that they force it on other people who have no interest in it, like a nut trying to force an insane reality on other people just to validate their crazy ideas. So the 1st world governments have been "commerce evangelizing" the 3rd world. 

[BarleySinger]: People who were reasonably happy, though money poor...who were living on traditional lands in ways that were different but worked OK for them, are now in a mess. Their lands are gone (often stolen by governments or corporations for the resources). THeir tradtional ways are destroyed (cultural genocide for a quick buck) and they have nothing to go back to. Now people with these other ways of life, people who were "money poor" but who didn't need money to survive...who were "land rich" in that they owned their lands, and lived on those lands and made pretty much every thing they needed - and didn't need money...now they live in flithy slums filled with disease and die much younger.

[kduncan]: Forsakenangels, "Who wants to be a millionaire" is wrong. Though a person who eats no red meat is often referred to as "semi-vgetarian", it's sort of like being "semi-virgin", ie: Either you are, or you aren't. There's no "semi" about it. In other words: A person either eats meat, or they don't.

[kduncan]: I find it intesting, BarleySinger, how many people who win millions of dollars in state-run lotteries wind up spending all their winnings, then finding themselves deep in debt. There's this idea, sold to the American public (and most likely those of other industrialised nations as well), that money can buy happiness. There's a huge vacuum in the heart of America that people try to fill with consumer goods. There have been pschological studies done of people who try to buy happiness through the purchase of cosumer goods.. and it's an extremely interesting phenomenon that seems to be growing in this country.

[kduncan]: My partner is from Long Island, which is probably second in consumerism only to southern California. My first few trips to Long Island were eye-openers, to say the least. I had never seen houses that have two, three, four.. or more!.. cars in each driveway. I'd never been in homes where the kids have televisions, computers, telephones, and stereos in their rooms. I'd never been in an area where the major pasttime seemed to be shopping. I'd never seen families in which everyone is in such a rush that people living under the same roof rarely see one another. It just seemed that people were trying to replace their personal relationships with.. things.

[Dil*]: I'm an anti-materialist myself, on the verge of declaring I buy clothes only from thrift stores. 

[Meridotahma]: Well, you're no longer on the verge now. You have already declared it.

[Dil*]: verge of declaring and declaring are different buddy. I'm headstrong, but...not that headstrong. Need time to mull over things. 

[Meridotahma]: It's all in the symantics. You'll get it eventually.

[Dil*]: Depends what contex you're speaking of. Mine makes sense in the 2nd one or so according to www.dictionary.com. 2. to affirm, I haven't affirmed it. Or the 2nd set, which is proclaim one's resolution. I haven't quite made the resolution to, it's all in the degrees. Actually, so far, for a while, I have basically done that. The last piece of clothing was from a thrift store for 4 dollars. And I bought that....4 months ago. Before that, I bought a souvenir T-shirt from england summertime. (doesn't really count, cause' you know, travelling goods.)

[kduncan]: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12187153/ This link is for those few Bush supporters who still cling feebly to the illusion that the Bush administration is honest, law-abiding, and has the best interests of Americans at heart when policy is made. And for those who don't bother to open the link because it might contain bad news about their man in Washington, here it is in brief: Bush himself is the one who authorised leaking the name of CIA agent Valerie Plame to the press. 

[kduncan]: Scott McClellan resigned.. heh.. had to see than one coming from about the time the press was notified about Cheney's little accident. Scott looked a little "miffed" when the general press was notified of Cheney's shooting incident.. and the Whitehouse Press Secretary (ie: Scott) was left in the dark. I wonder what else Scott was left in the dark about.

[Monk of Boom]: thanks george for this world wide oil crisis!

[kduncan]: The Bush administration's latest solution to high fuel prices in the US: Cut environmental regulations.

[Monk of Boom]: high!? we have always paid three times more than u there now!!

[kduncan]: I know, Monk, but most American's don't realise just how low fuel prices have been kept through government intervention, ie: tax breaks to oil companies. Fuel prices should be much, much higher in the US than they are. However, that money shouldn't be going toward multi-million dollar retirement packages for oil company executives, but to ressearch for alternative fuels, environmental repair/protection, and to developing more effective means of mass transportation for the public. My point was not so much that fuel prices are so high in the US, because in comparison to what the rest of the world is paying (even the countries where the oil is produced), but that the Bush administration

[kduncan]: (and the oil companies) see this as a way to get what they've been trying to get for decades: an easing of environmental protection regulations. So damn the clean air and the pristine forests, full speed ahead in your fully loaded SUV's.

[Monk of Boom]: ure right. we have even more enviromental cars here than in usa! there should be world wide equal oil price. i think that in that way people could realize and think that IS it truly nacessary to drive EVERYWHERE and i think we could save some fuel too

[you can all die.]: i gota song you guys might like

[merihevonen]: You all need to see this. This is a documentary about 9/11. Loose Change by Dylan Avery. It lasts for about 70 minutes, but watch it. 

[kduncan]: I watched the video, but never did stop back to comment (sorry!). I watched it twice in fact. There wasn't really anything new in it.. if you've seen Greg Palast's film regarding the Bush election theft in Florida and the events surrounding 911 (the name of the film escapes me at the moment, sorry again), you know what I mean. As a person with a great deal of experience in the field of aviation, I am absolutely certain, without a doubt, that the events of 911 did not happen as we were told. America was hijacked.

[you can all die.]: from what ive heard they alowed the "hijackers" on the planes or the piolates where told to fly into the bildings. bacause how is it that the pasengers could not over take two to three men?

[Chalora]: I think you'll all like this link: http://www.backwardsbush.com/

[kduncan]: Here's more for your reading pleasure: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14191255/

[BarleySinger]: The most intesting documentary I saw on 9/11 was french, and done by a strong skeptic of the idea that any conspiracy happened. He started out to disprove the entire idea that 9/11 was a setup, and he ended up changing sides, mostly by getting the original footage from 9/11 and using the "spot the boeing" conspiracy web site intormation. He had his own people blow up the images and saw, hitting one of the towers (from two angles), what was obviously NOT a passenger jet. There were no passenger windows. The size was wrong. The wings and tail design were wrong. It was dead grey in color with no airline logo, and it had a wierd thing hanging underneath it, on the right underside of the plane, that caused an explosion just a moment before the jet hit the building. The jet was obviously a modified military transport. As for the pentagon hit, it was not hit by a passenger jet. There was no jet wreckage, and the damage was all wrong. Also one of the flights (I think it was the one that supposedly blew up in the air) was in the news in the midwest as having been forced to land because of a suspected bomb being on board. All the passengers were taken off of the original jet and sent on their way on other flights. So the documentary maker, who was a total critic of the conspiracy ideas, changed his mind and made a movie about his conclusions. We have it on tape in our collection of tapes on various 9/11 information that does not add up.

[kduncan]: Assuming that the flights were commercial flights, has anyone asked the question, "Why were these commercial flights carrying only one quarter to one third of their potential passenger load?" When was the last time you were on a commercial domestic flight on which two thirds of its passenger seats were empty?

[you can all die.]: never, and if they were the other pasenger would have been able to take down like three guys

[// Grace //.And..Bend]: Interesting...Chris Walken running for president...I actually read the whole site looking for the joke but it's not...I don't think.

[you can all die.]: hmmmm.

[Curst]: I saw a really creepy documentary about the US yesterday:
http://www.infowars.com/martial_law_911.htm

[you can all die.]: the us is creepy.

[kduncan]: It is creepy.

I never thought I'd be saying that about the country I live in.

Weird though, schools are now asking for the first time for the following information about students parents: political party affiliation, religion, social security numbers. They also ask about students sexual activities and students illegal drug use.. I hope those students have the presence of mind to tell school officials "NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!", though that'd probably get them in trouble too. There's more! Schools now also give out student's information to third parties such as beauty pageant organisers, student directories that are published and sent to whoever wants to pay for one, and (you guessed it) the US military.

[you can all die.]: hmmmmm

[Dil*]: link me!!!!!! I want that info.

[kduncan]: Not sure what info you mean, Dil, but if you mean the student information, there's no one site that would cover it. The best resource might be www.aclufl.org to view the opt out forms that parents must submit to not have their children's information divulged.

I'm a parent, and as a result of the information collected by the public school system on my child, we have recieved beauty pageant offers, military recruitment brochures addressed to our child (who is a minor), offers to be included in commercial "student" directories which can then be purchased by us (or presumably anyone wanting to spend $29.99 for a catalogue of minor children in Florida).

This year I have opted out, and made sure that both my daughter and school officials understand that she is not to participate in any student surveys. If government officals want information about my family, they need to ask me.. not sneak around and try to pry the information from a minor child who may not understand what her rights are.

[you can all die.]: this is just showing how many more laws bush can break and get away with it.

[kduncan]: Unfortunately, a president is allowed a great deal of leniency to "bend" laws sufficient meet the needs of national security in times of war. The problem with this particular war is that in a war on terror, the enemy can never really be eliminated. If one shadowy terrorst group is defeated, voila! -- another makes its appearance. We now have a never ending "enemy" that can be able to be used to keep the American people in fear and which allows the kinds of "Big Brother" type activities we've come to expect from the Bush administration.

And don't forget, war is very profitable. Just ask the folks at Haliburton. A constant state of bombing countries in the hunt for terrorists means (of course) that those countries must be rebuilt.

[you can all die.]: yes, like his big phone and internet tapping that is hugely ilegal it violates privicy and freedom of speech. this is not a war and bush better start bombing himself cause he's a new terrorst leader.

[Curst]: Watch "Martial Law 9/11 : Rise of the Police State" over at:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6495462761605341661&q=martial+law

Running time 2:35

[you can all die.]: have any one here herd any about that movie thats gonna be ABC? the Road To 9/11

[kduncan]: Curst, that film was really great, thanks for posting the link. Though I agree with most of the material Mr. Jones presents in the film, some of his statements are exaggerated just a bit. Overall though, it's a great film, and I intend to view the other films listed on the sidebar.

I'd also like to point out that Aaron Swrisky, one of the architects who designed the WTC was quoted in a CNN article as saying, "Also, at that time (the time the WTC was designed), the planes were not like these types of planes that we have now. I think the biggest plane was a 100-passenger plane, something like that, and the fuel capacity of those planes was not like they are today."

What's wrong with his statement?

Well, I'm a pilot and flight instructor. Airplanes are not like cars in that pilots do not top their fuel tanks when they fly long distance flights. More fuel means more weight. More weight means an economically less efficient flight because the more fuel (weight) you are carrying, the more fuel you will have to burn in order to transport all that excess fuel. What does this mean? Well, a plane would not necessarily be carrying "more fuel" than a plane flying to the same destination, the plane would carry only enough fuel to get to its destination plus the FAA required reserve, which is typically alternative airport plus 45 minutes flight time. Yes, a bigger plane would be using more fuel because a bigger plane would weigh more and would be carrying more weight. But full tanks? No. And remember, these planes were only carrying about one quarter to one third their payload capacity.. so there would be even less fuel than if they were flying at full capacity.

[kduncan]: I hate the world, "The Road to 911" was aired over the past couple nights. I sort of followed the controversy surrounding the movie, then watched part of the first night and the second night. I was doing other things while watching, so really didn't sit and scrutinize every scene; though I will say that I doubt the film will win any awards.

I'm sort of surprised that Democrats made such a big stink about the movie, they gave it far more credit than it deserves. I think what they forgot was that "The Road to 911" was not a documentary, but a movie. At the beginning of the movie there was even a statement to the effect that some parts of the movie were not based on fact (ie: they were fiction).

Although it's hard for me to pin a movie like this as propaganda, we have to remember that some people do look at films that use historic events as a jumping off point for a movie and see these films as historical truths... and that's the scary part.

[kduncan]: That said, I want to move on to another television event: Bush's speech on the anniversary of 911.

In part of his speeech he said something to the effect that (and this is not an exact quote) if any terrorist group tried to attack the US again, they will be dealt the same fate as the attackers on 911 suffered.

I had to laugh.

[you can all die.]: im sure that scared them. i agree with what was said about the Road to 9/11 and sadly there is yet another movie out that i think is just to keep people mad so this "war" can keep going on.

[kduncan]: My mother told me once that war is profitable.

Look at what happened in Iraq: We go in and basically flattened an entire country. Of course, when you're the country responsible for destroying a country's social and financial structure, when the very infrastructure that was in place before no longer exsists, you hold some responsibility for putting that country back on its feet again.

Can we say "Job Creation"?

It was never about weapons of mass destruction or terrorism -- it's all about the money.

[you can all die.]: ya thats part of it. but it was also to get bush re-elected.

[kduncan]: Yes, but why do you think there was such a corporate push to put Bush in office? Both major political parties are supported by corporations, and a good many corporations support both the Democrats and the Republicans.

Corporations know where their money is well spent. Oil companies will back a party that will, say, support drilling in the Gulf of Mexico or the ANWAR as opposed to federal funding for solar power or wind power, because that's what's in the best financial interests of the oil company. Never mind endangered species or black tar on Florida beaches. If drug companies can support a party that will push through a medicare bill that favours drug companies over senior citizens and quality health care, so much the better for their corporate bottom dollar.

Make no mistake, i hate the world, it's about the money.

[you can all die.]: yes i know all that but, bush started this war so he would get re-elected and in the process make his walet a little fater.

[kduncan]: Yuo realise that Bush is merely a puppet, don't you?

Next time he does a televised conference, look closely, you can see the strings.

[you can all die.]: no, theres a little thing on his backs the chainy uses.

[kduncan]: lol.. nice play on words.

[Curst]: Head over to google.com and do a search for "failure" to see something interesting... ;-)

[you can all die.]: the white house?

[Curst]: "President of the United States - George W. Bush
Biography of the president from the official White House web site."

It is the FIRST hit google displays when you search for it... :P

[you can all die.]: oh, ya, that.

[kduncan]: OOPS! They did it again!
(Translations, the Bush administration is found guilty of yet another lie to the American people)

Here's the link to the article in USA Today.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-06-abramoff-bush_x.htm

[you can all die.]: are you just now hearing about it?

[kduncan]: No. But I'll also add that this is a little different from the Abramoff stuff that was circulating about Abramoff and the White House this summer.

If you remember, Bush was claiming he "didn't know" Abramoff, saying that he'd only met Abramoff once or twice, had posed with him in a photo, and that was it.. or something to that effect.

But, Bush did write a letter, at Abramoff's request, expressing support for the Pacific territory's school choice proposal. Abramoff has been a $100,000-plus fundraiser for Bush, and he and his wife have each given personal contributions of $5,000 to Bush's 2000 recount fund and the maximum $1,000 to his 2000 campaign.

With this latest bit of information it's a little harder for Bush to say he doesn't know Abramoff, and it appears that Bush lied about not knowing him. Let's put it this way, with over 400 Abramoff contacts with various members of the Bush administration in four years, either Bush was has no idea about what goes on at the White House or knew about his staff's contacts with Abramoff.. and either situation makes Bush a poor excuse for a President.

The more we find out about Bush and the Bush administration the sleazier they seem. Publicity and invesitgation is not a good thing for this White House.. no wonder they are working to keep Americans in the dark. Personally, I don't know why the democrats are sitting around with their thumbs up their butts and aren't making a serious effort to impeach Bush, he's certainly earned himself an impeachment.

[Goldice]: Well doesnt look like this page has been in use much. shame that

[Dil*]: well, it's depressing since bush won again. It will probably be more active if another bush tries to run for office.

[kduncan]: A longer lived wiki might be one about religion and politics. Ther's more than a little mingling of the two in the US, and I imagine it's the same with alot of other countries as well.

By the way, have you heard about the Republican Congressman (Foley) who just resigned his seat because of explicit emails he exchanged with a sixteen year old male? The kicker is that Foley had introduced legislation in July to protect children from exploitation by adults over the Internet. He also chaired the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children.

But what's really creepy is that other Republican Congressmen seem to have been aware of Foley's behaviour.. and looked the other way. I guess they think it's better to have a Republican who has sexual contact with children in Congress than having, say, another Democrat in Congress.

You can read the story here http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/30/ap/politics/mainD8KF8R7O0.shtml

[Dil*]: oh dear.

[BarleySinger]: Bush got his bill passed. Now he has absolute control when it comes to how any prisoner accused of terroism is treated, and can declare toture legal for anyone he wants tortured. It makes legal all the stuff that has been going on in this supposed "War on Terrorism", with secret US out of country bases where the CIA torture people...all in countries where there are no laws against torture.

I do not know if this stuff gets reported inside of the US in the mainstream press, but we have been hearing about it for quite a while now.

Now Bush has far more power than any president was ever meant to have. He can make international and national laws on torture totally void with a word.

[you can all die.]: the "war" will never end untill he's out of ofice and if any U.S. media wrote any thing on torture outside of the country will be told to not print it or go to jail after all copys of the colum or artical have been found and delt with.

[kduncan]: It's sort of kind of reported in the US.

We know that prisoners are being transported to countries where the laws against torture are a little more lenient, but little is said about why the US is doing this. Anyone with half a brain knows why the US is doing it of course (though I suppose some people over in the Bush Supporters forum will still deny that the US tortures prisoners who have yet to stand trial).

It's really getting frightening to live in the US. Personally, I feel we have to be careful about what we say. Passports are now going to be required (even for minor children) to enter the US from Canada. This requirement even extends to US citizens who are merely re-entering the US from Canada.

There were incidents of "secret" police at the Nafta protests in Seattle: Police who wore badges, but had the numbers on their badges covered up. There were also police in uniform, but with no badges.

More and more public schools are requiring uniforms in an effort to "protect" students. There are police in public schools, drug dogs routinely are let into classrooms to sniff around the kids to check for drugs. Students are asked to fill out questionaires in which they are basically asked to report friends. Students are also asked to fill out questionaires reporting the religious and political affiliations of their parents. Information about students is forwarded to, get this, the US military.

Scary, scary stuff going on here.

[kduncan]: By the way, [you can all die.], if you haven't opted out of the program that allows the US military access to your student information, you should do so. The aclu has the printable opt out form here: http://www.aclu.org/standup/factsheet/index.html

[you can all die.]: yes, not to be mean, but we've know about that for a few months.

[kduncan]: Just making sure.
You'd be surprised how many people have no idea:
1. That they can opt out, and
2. How to do it.

[kduncan]: "Conservatives Without Conscience" by John W. Dean
(From a review of his book in Newsweek)
Dean now has a far more distinguished career than his ignominious role in Nixon's white house: he's a knowing political observer with six books and a column on findlaw.com. He's still a "Goldwater conservative" (the senator, a friend, had planned to co-write a book before he died). Today's right, Dean argues, isn't libertarian, but authoritarian. New research in social science and psychology, he says, links the aggressive, angry, often amoral authoritarian personality with today's Repulicanism. Scary stuff. ~David Gates

Looks like a good read.

[Noctra Vampirea]: ok so you guys are a part of this bush haters community but why do yall hate him????? im not a bush fan and im in the army in Iraq so i have real reasons but if you dont then why make up this page and fill it with retard bull crap that aint really the truth???research your hate people

[Rondel]: I'm curious, [Noctra Vampirea], what is being said here that you take issue with? I've seen some pretty well researched comments here -- better than on the average "news magazine" show on TV, that's for certain. I also wonder whether you're actually dismissing other people's reasons for hating Bush as not being "real reasons", or whether that was just an illusion resulting from the way your post came across. I can assure you (having left the US for life, based in part on my reasons), there are others here with perfectly valid reasons for hating Bush, some personal, some simply "well-researched".

[kduncan]: Noctra Vampirea, look a little further back in the comments section of this wiki to see reasearch article after research article. Can you please post some information, validated information, to show proof that:
1. The invasion of Iraq was justified on the basis of Bush's argument that they had weapons of mass destruction.
2. That the Florida 2000 presidential election did not violate the rights of tens of thousands of eligible black voters.
3. That the Bush administration had no prior knowledge of an imminent attack against the US.
4. That Republican leadership had no knowledge three plus years ago that Foley was having extremely inappropriate conversations with minor children.
5. That lobbyists did not illegally pad the campaign pockets of Republicans.
6. That the Bush administration has served as a "unifier" of the American people as opposed to causing severe rifts among the American people.
7. That the US economy has improved under the Bush administration.
8. That health care has become more available and more affordable to the poor and elderly under the Bush administration.

I can go on if you really want me to. Bush has been the single worse president the US has ever seen. He has violated the tenets of the Declaration of Independence (I have the Declaration of Independence in my Elftown house if you wish to read it over), which should be a considered an unbridled slap in the face to every single American citizen. Bush exists in a moral vaccuum; he is unfit for the office he holds. When a President abuses the power of his or her office to violate the rights of the people, to hand over to corporations the right to subdue the rights of individuals, yes, I take it very personally.

Please, Noctra Vampirea, offer up your proof if you are here to defend Bush's actions. If you have no proof then you are every bit as ignorant as every other Bush supporter who has come through here.

[Rondel]: From what I saw in [Noctra Vampirea]'s post, s/he's not a Bush supporter ("not a bush fan and im in the army in Iraq so i have real reasons") -- just not overly impressed with at least some portion of the discussion seen here, which is why I was wondering what (of what has been posted here remotely recently) would possibly elicit that response. I will admit (as a semi-regular poster here myself) that I've seen some stuff float through here which would be more appropriately located in a sewer... ...but that is NOT the common level of the posts here (yours especially, [kduncan]), and I haven't seen anything of that nature recently.

[Dil*]: I'm not as merciful, 'research your hate', geesh, there's a whole fricken page dedicated to why we dislike him. And there's the obvious stuff like that fact he *lied* about the premises of why they should attack Iraq.

[kduncan]: Personally, I think that most people who post to this forum don't hate Bush per say, but hate what they have seen him do while in office.

Yes, I hate what I see this country becoming. I hate the fact that our government of "compassionate conservatives" has turned American against American, that those who peacefully dissent are referred to as un-American. I hate that the Bush administration has turned US democracy into a world-wide joke. I hate that the American system of checks and balances has been compromised in the names of fear and profit. I hate that, in the country claiming equality and justice for all, we can be whisked away to a country that condones torture, branded a terrorist, and be made to confess to crimes we never committed.

Do I hate Bush peronally? No, I don't even know him personally. However, based on the evidence I have seen he is a immoral, corrupt person who is willing to compromise the American people in favour of corporate profit.

When I see people saying, "im not a bush fan and im in the army in Iraq so i have real reasons but if you dont then why make up this page and fill it with retard bull crap that aint really the truth???research your hate people" I get the feeling that the person in question is a Bush supporter. As you pointed out, Rondel, there's not alot of "retard bull crap" in this forum. . Most of the comments are fairly well researched (not all, but most). When challenged, most people in this forum have pulled up article after article to support what they've said. There has been some excellent research done by people who contribute to this forum, and they get "retard bull crap"?

Pardon me if I take offence.

And to the statement about being in the military and serving in Iraq: Judging from Noctra's age, she joined knowing full well that she would very likely be serving in Iraq, so I'm a tad confused at why she should have "reasons". I could sympathise if she had joined before the US invaded Iraq, and got involved in a war she neither supported nor enlisted to fight..but it doesn't look like that's the case here.

[Rondel]: I completely follow your point, [kduncan], and I can see where you're coming from, and respect both your feelings and your right to have them -- in fact, I don't dispute anything you've said. However, what I got out of what was said was a bit different, and since we don't have the author's own words to explain their position, you and I will each have to work based on our understanding of what was said.

Have I seen "bull crap" here? Yes, though as I said, it's *far* from the dominant element, and I haven't seen it here lately -- but as has been said by the group's mainstays, when it has been posted, it *does* drag the group down in the eyes of some readers, when the crap is posted by people purporting to be "onside".

Can I see a point of view from which [Noctra Vampirea]'s statements would be justified or justifiable? Yes. Do I know for sure that she's coming from that point of view? No. Do I think it's the likeliest possibility? Not really -- I don't feel that I'm in a good position to judge probabilities under the circumstances.

But I could well envision someone who was "not a Bush fan" joining the military because of a family background in which they had been raised to believe that it was the act of a concerned and responsible citizen to do so, whether or not they agreed with the person or politics of the president/commander-in-chief, and finding that the war that they actually *are* fighting doesn't correspond closely to what they had been raised to believe that "our nation's military stands for", and that the methods used are reprehensible, in a way that they honestly had not known to expect. Again, do I know that this is the case, for Noctra? No. But do I consider it to be a possibility, particularly when dealing with someone young enough to have joined since the war began, that they would have been educated to believe something which their subsequent experience contradicted, and not *previously* have had the independent experience to allow them to reassess what they had been raised to believe.

Maybe that's being soft-hearted, maybe it's wishful thinking; I am no happier with what's been done to America under Bush, and in his name, than you are, [kduncan]... ...but I think that perhaps I try to consider possibilities such as these, in a case like this, precisely because I want to hope that many of those whose support has allowed the nation to be taken down this path have given that support out of a lack of knowledge or understanding which can be remedied by experience, and, perhaps to a lesser extent (unfortunately), education.

As for Bush himself, I have to agree with you -- *he*, innately, is not the source of the problem. He is a flawed and fallible human being whose failings have been made use of, by others, and while I do not like what I know of him, as a person or a president, my judgement and condemnation of him is as a president, because he is not responsible to me as a person, only as a president -- *my* president, for however much longer I remain a US citizen and/or he remains in office. But while I hate what he has done, and what he has been used to do, I have never been *personally* harmed by him in such a way as to him, *as a person*, to earn my rarely-bestowed "hate". It's a fine line, though.

One last point -- you mentioned, [kduncan], about people being taken "to a nation which condones torture" -- and at this point, regrettably, I have to say that the US appears to have slid into that category *as a nation* -- because while, as a nation, it may not "support" the act of torture, it has *accepted* those acts of torture, and the fact that they are being performed in the nation's name, and by so doing, condoned those acts, and their nature.

There are MANY individuals who feel otherwise, I know that -- but as has been said so aptly, "silence is the voice of complicity" -- and the nation has not spoken up, or risen up, to stop the torture being enacted in its name. That sickens and saddens me.

I wish that those, like you, who *do* speak up against those acts had the power to stop them, and to bring the US back into the category of those (whether nations or individuals) who DO NOT condone torture.

[kduncan]: Romdel, you say that, "But I could well envision someone who was "not a Bush fan" joining the military because of a family background in which they had been raised to believe that it was the act of a concerned and responsible citizen to do so, whether or not they agreed with the person or politics of the president/commander-in-chief, and finding that the war that they actually *are* fighting doesn't correspond closely to what they had been raised to believe that "our nation's military stands for", and that the methods used are reprehensible, in a way that they honestly had not known to expect. Again, do I know that this is the case, for Noctra? No. But do I consider it to be a possibility, particularly when dealing with someone young enough to have joined since the war began, that they would have been educated to believe something which their subsequent experience contradicted, and not *previously* have had the independent experience to allow them to reassess what they had been raised to believe."

I understand what you are saying, and partially agree in that I can understand someone not really understanding the full extent of what this war is about because of a lack of media neutrality in the US. However, Noctra does have access to the internet and to the information provided by outside organizations based in other countries, so there is really no excuse for ignorance. This is especially true if she has really followed any of the arguments in this forum, as she claims to have done through her accusation of "retard bullcrap". There is a repsonsibility to know what one is fighting for before one joins a fight. For a person who wants merely to serve their country, there are other options in the US, like Americorp. There is mo excuse, ever, to willingly join the military to fight an unjust war. In the Viet Nam era, with the draft in place, people found ways to aviod fighting a war they did not believe in. Asin the Viet Nam era, people have recently refused to go to iraq to fight a war they do not believe in.

My mother (a Viet Nam war protestor) kept a poster in her room long after the days of the Viet ban war and the protests of that war, as a reminder of sorts. It said, "Suppose they gave a war, and nobody came". When the US military fights a war that violates the values on which this country was founded, ie The Declaration of Independence, it puts in jeopardy everything good the US has come to represent. The military is made up of individuals, and individuals have the ability to make decisions independent of the miltary machine they are part of. As you alluded to, the voices of many individuals speaking in unison can be deafening.

[kduncan]: This from Peter Baker of the Washington Post:
"The president has shifted language on Iraq before. At a news conference in August, he returned to his prewar argument that Saddam Hussein harbored terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Hussein "had relations with Zarqawi," Bush said. Weeks later, the Senate intelligence committee concluded that Hussein "did not have a relationship, harbor or turn a blind eye to Zarqawi" and that the U.S. government knew that before the invasion. At his next news conference, Bush was asked about that. "I never said there was an operational relationship," he said."

Lol.. had to wipe a tear from my eye after laughing so hard.

[Rondel]: [kduncan], I have always loved that slogan ("Suppose they gave a war, and nobody came?") -- to me, it's right up there with the ones about properly funding education, leaving the military to hold bake sales in order to buy nuclear weapons. And, as an ideal, I agree with you: the individual should be responsible for educating hirself adequately to ensure that all of hir own actions are in accordance with hir own principles. But, I am well aware of just how much influence one's home environment (and/or other influential environments) can have during one's formative years, so I tend to recognize that a person can begin to "wake up to themselves" during their early adulthood, as they become more aware of the world outside of the influence of the authority figures they've been raised by (schools, home, religion, whatever). I wish I didn't have such good reasons to be aware of this, and I wish that such extreme mental domination were not such a prevalent aspect of many children's lives, but as I said, I try to look at it from the hopeful side, which is that many of those who support what is (to me) indefensible may well be capable of coming to a healthier point of view, through education.

This may seem, to you, to be cutting people a lot more slack than is reasonable, given the number of ways open to people for educating themselves, beyond the enforced education of their home environments. But I have to counter that with the recognition that you and I grew up in homes where that concept was understood and supported. Before one make use of a resource, one has to realize that it is there, and recognize it for a resource, and when one's upbringing is so overwhelming as to be tantamount to brainwashing (as is found in many homes where "truth" is dictated by the parent or other authority figure, and enforced with techniques which would actually be illegal to use on an adult), that is unlikely to happen until the person is out of that environment. The fact that a person can "wake up to" the realities of their nation (NOT "my nation, right or wrong"), etc., while serving in its military as a young adult, speaks volumes about the fact that the influence of the military is actually *less* forceful and overwhelming (despite training methods which themselves have been recognized as a form of brainwashing, and can be identified as such by any individual who wishes to educate themselves as to the tools and methods which constitute brainwashing, and compare them to the methods of training used in training for military service, at least in the US -- sleep deprivation, constant reiteration of slogans and beliefs as the body is pushed to its utmost limits, etc.) than the home and/or school environments from which these people came. The fact that independent thinking is *easier* in that context than as a schoolchild living at home speaks volumes about the restraints to independent thinking which many young people face. How is a person to learn from independent sources when the most fundamental basics of their world include things like "gravity is real, things fall when we drop them, and the US is a bastion of freedom and democracy" -- and to question the latter is to call into question the legitimacy of EVERYTHING that they have been taught, and go through a period of extreme unsettled distress as they have to start from scratch and figure out for themselves what is and isn't real and true? Yes, people do that, and some of them succeed in doing so at a young age -- but many of those who do, do so precisely because some aspect of their personal experiential reality is at odds with what they are being taught. For those who do NOT have something causing that type of cognitive dissonance (for instance, an awareness that their own sexual orientation is outside of what they've been taught is the only way to be a decent person), the things that they've been taught act as a single seamless whole, and to question any aspect of it is to fight against the entire edifice; in my experience, that kind of reassessment of reality takes *years*, once the edifice itself has been constructed. That is why it is *vital* to try to help kids by training them in logic, and exposing them to different points of view from a young age, so that they are NOT mired in a single unquestioned structure of enforced beliefs -- but it's also why I hold more hope for young adults than for those who have had the time to go through that reassessment while living in a larger world, where they are exposed to differences and realities which are at odds with what they have been taught, and have failed to break out of their entrenched mindset.

And in the meantime, I think it's important to do everything possible to help those who *are* starting to think for themselves, whatever their age, and to promote awareness of resources such as those alternative sources of news which you and I find so useful in preventing a media-dominated world from dictating reality. And yes, I think that it's important to recognize those first steps into reassessment of what a person has been taught, and encourage them, and restrain the desire to rail at a person for not managing more, and sooner. I don't believe that one has to condone the things a person hasn't reassessed in order to applaud their courage and strength in evaluating some aspect of reality for themselves.

But none of that changes my view of what the ideal would be, it just means that I recognize that we don't live in an ideal world, and people are more likely to make change in their own views if the process of doing so does not consist of overwhelming criticism -- but also, that whatever the method, the process takes time, hard work, a period of distressed instability, and the courage to endure that sense of instability in order to hold views which accord with reality.

That said, statements like the Baker quote above are an excellent example of the ragged edges of truth showing the points of inconsistency in the enforced "consensual reality" of the nationalist media. "Laughing 'til you cry" just about sums it up! :D *sigh* I wish that I didn't believe that there is a huge population of people whose memories are so short that they'll believe both positions, or rather whichever is held at the time. And I think that is part of the problem -- when people feel irrelevant to the political process, they may choose not to pay attention to it (as many/most seem to), and then they're less likely to catch the inconsistencies, and (if you'll pardon the metaphor) use them to pry up the corner of the veneer of lies to reveal the truth.

[Pillowthief]: Holy crap, I forgot I was a member of this wiki. [Rondel], you bring up so many good points I cant name them all, Im surprised ET didnt make you log in again in the middle of writing that.

[Rondel]: *wry laugh* I have my ET account set to only require me to login once per 24-hour period, unless I log out.

And, I've found a new site (well, new to me, anyway) which might be of interest to you folks:
  http://www.impeachthemotherfuckeralready.com

If I may quote a piece of their initial post:

"I don’t expect that this little campaign is going to lead to President Bush being removed from office. It would be nice, of course, but unlikely.

So what’s this all about then? <snip> the reason I’m pouring my weekend and my money into this campaign is because… well, let me quote at length from Lewis Lapham’s essay, The Case for Impeachment. Lapham leads with U.S. Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D., Mich). Last year Conyer’s introduced a resolution calling on Congress to impeach the president. No one noticed.

  The nearly complete silence raised the question as to what it was the congressman had in mind, and to whom did he think he was speaking? In time of war few propositions would seem as futile as the attempt to impeach a president whose political party controls the Congress; as the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee stationed on Capitol Hill for the last forty years, Representative Conyers presumably knew that to expect the Republican caucus in the House to take note of his invitation, much less arm it with the power of subpoena, was to expect a miracle of democratic transformation and rebirth not unlike the one looked for by President Bush under the prayer rugs in Baghdad. Unless the congressman intended some sort of symbolic gesture, self-serving and harmless, what did he hope to prove or to gain? He answered the question in early January, on the phone from Detroit during the congressional winter recess.

  “To take away the excuse,” he said, “that we didn't know.” So that two or four or ten years from now, if somebody should ask, “Where were you, Conyers, and where was the United States Congress?” when the Bush Administration declared the Constitution inoperative and revoked the license of parliamentary government, none of the company now present can plead ignorance or temporary insanity, can say that “somehow it escaped our notice” that the President was setting himself up as a supreme leader exempt from the rule of law.

Okay, so this ain’t congress, and, unlike Conyers’, there’s nothing soaring or grand about my rhetoric. “Impeach the motherfucker already” ain’t no “high crimes and misdemeanors.” But wearing an ITMFA button or a lapel pin or a t-shirt allows folks who aren’t members of Congress to answer Conyers’ question: Where were we when the Bush administration declared the constitution inoperative and revoked the license of parliamentary government? Well, we were wondering why the assholes in the U.S. Congress hadn’t IMPEACHED THE MOTHERFUCKER ALREADY, and we were wearing these buttons and lapel pins."

[hellnegative]: The pen is mightier than the sword

It's our primary weapon to start fights and wars.

Fight for what we want to have for free

Instead of bargain to get it for cheap.

The deficit is up and gas has not gone down

Our president uses our war as veil and gown.

Uses it as an excuse to change subjects and cool the heat

While everyone ponders about how he got his seat.

We are misguided by our leaders and politicians

They look for soldiers while innocents need morticians

Bomb shells in cities, throing them into chaos

Why havent we realized that our war is lost.

What if we win, what happens next

We pull out and watch terrorists do their best

They come in and start another war

Then we wonder what the original fighting was for

Was it for freedom, was it for oil

We spent all of our deficit to learn about their spoils

Our country is in debt from lies and war

While our presidents daddy and chenie know what it is for.

They make profit from oils and weapon sales

While our soldiers fight, die and live in hell.

Our president was a coward and would not fight

A draft dodger without any type of life

He'd rather get stoned and ponder skipping out

Than stand up and learn what freedom is truly about.

It's too late to vote for him to be gone, nothing we can do

Just try to remember what he did to you

To your family, to your friends, sending them to war

Using our soldiers for his own purpose, what a whore.

Don't hate our government, it started on good grounds

Just look at the men for whome it was founded.

They were willing to fight for christian beliefs

While our new government thinks free thinking brings grief!



Now for a word from myself. Support our troops, not what they fight for. Don't get me wrong. I love those guys and think they all should be called heroes. Another thing. If we had a time machine.... We would go back in time and get our forefathers and bring them to our time to let them see what our country has become. First, they would be showed anarchists and how they are a threat to democracy. Then they would be showed punks and shown how they are a threat to our countries beliefs. Then they would be shown the poor and told how the government is trying to help. Then they would be shown the rich and say that these people worked for their success. Then they would be shown our modern government and how it works

  Then our forefathers would laugh a little, then become outraged. They would go back to the rich and tell them how they should really behave. Then they would go to the poor and ask them if they need help. The poor would agree and say thank you, this is the first time the governement hasn't done something to benefit itself.

  Then they would go to the punks. They would ask the punks why they are so angry. The punks would say its because in this country you have to fit a certain image or be rich to be free. The forefathers would bring them up and teach them to fight. Then they would take the punks to the anarchists.

  Our forefathers would ask the anarchists if they had an organized militia. The anarchists would say yes and ask what for. Our forefathers would then respond;

  We want to bring down your modern government. We want to strip it down and make it like it used to be. This country was founded on everyon ebeing equal and being treated the same. Our time here has shown that the government works to profit themselves and the rich by selling high to the poor. We want to reinstate the original constitution and make law the way it should be. Everyone should be free in the USA.

  Your modern government is nothing but organized communism. A government working to profit itself and control its people. The poor go to war and fight for the rich to be happy. Everyone should fight, including your politicians and your rich. We askt hat you help us to do all of this, slo that everyone may be happy.

  Then the anarchists and the punks would agree. Then our government would be overthrown and the greatest superpower in the world would become the greatest nation in the world.

[kduncan]: If only the America were commuist.

Ok, now the Bush supporters who come here (but never comment because, face it, Bush is at the lowest point that ANY US president has ever been) will say "See, we KNEW it! She's a communist!" But the thing that many Americans seem to forget is that communism is not a government system, it's an economic system.

I do believe in communism, but a democratic communism.

Communism is the oldest economic system in the history of humankind; it's the system whereby members of the tribe took care of each other and nobody ever went without. People of the tribe provided the food, shelter, clothing, medical care, childcare, etcetera that everyone needs.. and yes, even deserves, because every haman deserves the basic necessities of life. Does communism mean that some people will get more than what they put into the group? Well, yes, but then, so does capitalism folks. To what end do the likes of Paris Hilton deserve the millions of dollars they will inherit on the death of their parents?

On a large scale communism has been largely a failure because of simple human greed. But I truly believe that the Christ that most Bush supporters look to would be communist if he were alive today, and that he was communist in his actions during his life.

Just somethng to think about.

[hellnegative]: I was refferring to soviet communism. I agree that ancient communism is the most solid form of government, but is again just like anarchy. In a world that uses money, greed will always take over and someone will want power to themselves. Untill we can say that money has no value, we will be stuck with greed. It needs to be like it used to be, bartered trade. You sell what you have and what you can do for what you need to have or have done.

[hellnegative]: I am also a christian and see how much of a hypocrit our George W. is. He pushes against stem cell research and forgets that you can get it from somewhere else besides a baby. He pushes against the unity of church and state. He's no christian. He's just another figurehead telling hte majority what they want to hear.

[kduncan]: Communism is not a form of government at all, it is an economic system only. I think that most Americans are fully ignorant on this point. Communism exsisted on a large scale in the US as recently as 300 years ago in that most, if not all, native American nations were communist in nature. The earliest European settlers in this country were also, by necessity, communist. In the 1960's communes (ie: communist groups) were in existance throughout the US on a smaller scale, and some have lasted and are still around today. There is one in Tennessee that arose from the late 60's/early 70's. Homeschool groups in existance in Florida today are communist in nature. To have a successful communist group one needs not to say that money has no value, but instead must realise that the contribution of each individual has value.

It's a sad state indeed that we have in the US when attorney's make more than firefighters and teachers, when a CEO makes more from dismantling a corporation than the employees who manufactured the goods the now defunct corporation marketed made. It should be a crime for a vice president to collect more in retirement benefits from a corporation that provides war machines than he makes as vice president of the United States. The US is in a downward spiral that I'm not sure we can recover from; we need to step out of the "me" and into the "we".

[Rondel]: [hellnegative], I have to wonder if you've ever actually been exposed to any of the actual source material that describes true communism -- not "ancient communism" (by the by, communes were one of the most common social structures in early Christianity), but the "economic structure" that [kduncan] keeps referring to. If not, I don't consider that to be a fault or failing on your part -- ignorance is curable, as long as people are open to learning new things, but I think it's regrettable, particularly when it results from a misinformation campaign. So when I see you making the comments you have about "communism", I see the echoes of one of the last big societal lies used to prop up the US self-image of "freedom through capitalism", which was inflicted on most of the current generation, through the educational institutes which should be helping people learn to think for themselves, and shape the future, but which are instead being used to shape the people into the mold that is most convenient to those currently in power. That you've made the decisions you have, to question that power structure, despite your obvious indoctrination (again, not your fault, I hate the way the US schools are used to indoctrinate their students; I hated it when I was in school there, and I have seen many better alternatives since), speaks well for you. But I do think you would be pleasantly surprised if you were to read up on what true communism is -- and how the U.S.S.R. differed from it (the USSR was imposed socialism, not communism, and the political structure used to impose it was (if I recall correctly) fascist in nature -- just like the National Socialist movement in Germany, which we know better as the "Nazi" party. There is a shortage of large-scale examples of communism in practise on a national scale, which is, I think, because communism is a thing that arises on a local scale, from the ground up, rather than from the top down. You can't impose it on people, because they have to truly believe in helping each other in order to be willing to take the long-term view of societal stability over the immediate short-term gain of personal greed.

The watchword of communism, and one which I think would be healthy for *any* social or economic structure to take to heart, was simply this: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." If we each contribute what we are best at doing, and draw on the output thus created only to the extent that we *NEED* to, then society and the individual each benefit. Putting people to work that they are ill-suited to does not tend to work out well -- and leaving people without what they need, or people drawing on what is available far beyond what they DO need, is what leads to the vast imbalances of rich and poor that create so much suffering, as people are left without the basic necessities of life.

And I agree -- stepping out of the "me" into the "we" makes a huge step toward healing what is wrong with society.

One final note -- even Tyrannosaurus Rex cared for its weak/injured -- there are archaeological finds which show cases where a T. Rex survived an injury whose nature would have caused it to be incapacitated for months to years, unable to move, hunt, or protect itself. Surely as the "most advanced species on the planet", we can *at least* live up to that example, if not exceed it?

And I agree -- individuals profiting from dismantling a company rather than leaving it in the business it was in, doing its best to create a good product for a fair price, at a reasonable wage for all of its employees, which the company looks after because it depends upon them for its existence, is another perfect example of what is wrong with the present of the US. *sigh* It's a shame that in a world where we could actually meet everyone's needs with the available resources, so many are left to suffer because so few feel the greed to have so much -- and still want to amass more.

[kduncan]: You know something? This forum is far too good a forum to be just an Elftown forum.

[Rondel]: Do you have a suggested solution to that? I wouldn't want to disrupt the very factors that make it work so well, in any attempt to expand its accessibility. But you do have a point. I can't help wondering if there's an easy way to download the comments section of this wiki into a file, which could be turned into a join publishing venture on the part of those contributors who wished to participate -- somewhat along the lines of the page that was dedicated to allowing people to post to a wiki the best of the longer comments from this page, only on a larger scale. It's a tempting idea, that's for certain. I should really at least go through and archive off my own comments for inclusion on one of the other venues where I have chosen to air my point of view on these and other issues, if only to save myself having to retype the concepts expressed. :)

[// Grace //.And..Bend]: I don't wanna pull you guys off subject so this is just a side thought. I was looking at the member list and noticed the fact that we have over 300 members and only a handful of them post. In normal fashion, I'm not sure what that has to do with anything but I figured I'd mention it. Maybe we should build a new forum somewhere and take everyone with us?

[Silver Moon]: can I join?

[kduncan]: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

You know, over and over we've heard Bush supporters literally shrieking about pre-war evidence of weapopns of mass destruction, and Hussein's links to Al Qaeda. Well.. the WMD proof went up in smoke first, and now the Al Qaeda link has been disproven. Since all the Bush supporters were so willing to charge onto this forum screaming venemously about the anti-Bush people being un-American for questioning the motives of the Bush administration behind the invasion of Iraq, do you think we're going to see a parade of Bush supporters through here saying to us, "You know, I'm sorry.. but it turns out you folks were right all along"?

[Rondel]: I can think of some people I'd like to see holding their breath until that happens... ;D ...but I won't be joining them.

[kduncan]: A friend of mine has a theory about Bush.. and I think she may be right. Most people think that Bush is trying to fill Daddy's shoes, but her theory of that his.. er.. control issues.. actually stem from his childhood problems with his mother dominating him.

Everything I've seen seems to indicate that my friend might be right. Alot of Bush's attitude seems to be, "I'm gonna do it the way I want, and you can't stop me!" (Gosh.. sound alot like Gilligan's arguements with the Captain on "Gilligan's Island. You know, "You can't make me, you can't make me!" Then the cutscene, and we see Gilligan standing there in the dress the Captain was trying to get him to wear.)

[kduncan]: George Tenet has written a book, "At the Center of the Storm", denouncing Bush administration officials saying, "they pushed the country to war in Iraq without ever conducting a serious debate about whether Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to the United States."

The Bush administration has made fools of the Americans who voted for him a second time, basing his entire campaign on fear. Now Bush is vowing to veto the bill that has been passed by Congress -- a Congress elected by Americans who are absolutely fed up with the bullsh*t being fed them by an administration that has repeatedly lied to lead the US into its first ever invasion of a foreign country.

Frankly, at this point, impeachment is not enough. Bush and his entire administration are guilty of war crimes. They should be tried in a court of law and, in my opinion, should spend the rest of their lives behind bars.

[Matt's baby]: Hey.. I hate Bush.. Someone needs too KICK him out of office..

[kduncan]: Actually, at this point, I'm not so sure that would be the best thing. At this point, I'd rather see Bush and his entire administration stand trial for war crimes -- and I don't think the rest of the world's leaders will opt for that until Bush no longer has his finger on the nuclear trigger.

[Luxord]: Dude, i resptect what you are saying but you are being a bit extreme. War crimes? He committed no such act.
I agree that he must be removed from office but he didn't bring about the first invasion of a foreign country. Ever heard of Hawaii? We annexed those islands against the wishes of the natives. That is an invasion.

[chasingpeace]: It's not just invading a country, it's a blatant disregard for human decency...we bomb domestic areas, homes with civilians, women and children...then we drop care packages which are in the same shape of bombshells...and now poeple are finding out that soldiers have commited rape also...

[Luxord]: but you can't pin all that on the Comander in Chief. he doesn't give EVERY command.

[chasingpeace]: but he does seem to be the one who has to take responsibility for what the army does...he appoints all the head honchos, which give the orders, and passes the bills which give them billion of dollars to lose, which the U.S does not have to just give away.

[Luxord]: i hear you on that and agree. All i am saying is that he has ot committed crimes against humanity. If he did then he would be gone. He is not Hussien or Hitler.

[kduncan]: Bush disregarded information form the CIA regarding weapons of mass destruction and the presense of Al Queda in Iraq.. and took that false (ie: manufactured) information to Congress to initiate an invasion of Iraq. ie: he put American citizens at risk, authorised the murders of tens of thousands of Iraqi people, though some reports say the total is in the hundreds of thousands. His actions have made America even MORE hated in the middle east and in the world in general thus making future attacks MORE likely, not less likely as the Bush administration would have American citizens believe.

The Bush administration has permitted.. no, endorsed.. human rights violations. ie: imprisoning people without those people having the benefit of a jury of their peers.. or often without those people even knowing WHY they are being held. The Bush administration has sent some of these people to secret prisons where they have seen subjected to torture. US citizens have been denied the right to travel.. and are not told why they are denied this right. We've had secret police, ie: police that wear no identification badges, at the NAFTA/WTO protests.

And now the US wants to build a wall. Make no mistake: Walls are as effective at keeping people in as they are at keeping people out. Now.. suppose you lived in a country where your right to travel is denied, and a wall keeps you in -- could that possibly be the US? 

Yes, the US annexed Hawaii against the wishes of the native Hawaiians, just as the US forced tens of thousands of Cherokee people to move from their native lands in a travesty now called the Trail of Tears (look it up). However, past injustices committed by (now dead) US presidents do not mean that the current US president should be let pardoned for actions that are equally as heinous.

Can an invasion occur without the invading country annexing the country it has invaded? Yes. That country simply puts in place leadership it finds more.. cooperative.

Bush may not be Hussein or Hitler.. but he has done some of the very same things they have done, most Americans simply don't see it -- yet.

[kduncan]: Every once in a while I post something from Moby's on line journal because the guy.. well, he just thinks like me.

Here's the latest:

isn't it funny that el presidente bush has decided to celebrate liberty and justice by overturning scooter libby's verdict?
the courts decided that scooter libby should go to jail.
so g w bush stepped in and overturned the juries verdict and decided that scooter libby doesn't need to go to jail.
must be fun to be the presidents friend.
so, the moral of the story:
if you are caught with an ounce of marijuana you get thrown in jail, but if you lie under oath and are involved in revealing the name of an undercover cia agent you don't have to go to jail if you're the presidents friend.
good ole american justice.

[Eckohawk]: Omg... I was in Maine last week and the retard, himself, showed up to visit his dad... >> I know where he lives... xDDD
Hehe I know where he lives in Wells, Maine. Wheeeee :D

[kduncan]: From Moby's journal.
www.moby.com

he/she is essentially america's top doctor and leading health expert.
here's an article from todays new york times...
yet another reason to profoundly loathe the bush administration, dismissing global warming and the special olympics as liberal issues.
the bush administration is a huge black stain on america.
read on.
moby

washington, july 10 — former surgeon general richard h. carmona told a congressional panel tuesday that top bush administration officials repeatedly tried to weaken or suppress important public health reports because of political considerations.

the administration, dr. carmona said, would not allow him to speak or issue reports about stem cells, emergency contraception, sex education, or prison, mental and global health issues. top officials delayed for years and tried to “water down” a landmark report on secondhand smoke, he said. released last year, the report concluded that even brief exposure to cigarette smoke could cause immediate harm.

dr. carmona said he was ordered to mention president bush three times on every page of his speeches. he also said he was asked to make speeches to support republican political candidates and to attend political briefings.

and administration officials even discouraged him from attending the special olympics because, he said, of that charitable organization’s longtime ties to a “prominent family” that he refused to name.

the special olympics is one of the nation’s premier charitable organizations to benefit disabled people, and the kennedys have long been deeply involved in it.

when asked after the hearing if that “prominent family” was the kennedys, dr. carmona responded, “you said it. i didn’t.”

dr. carmona is one of a growing list of present and former bush administration officials to charge that politics often trumped science within what had previously been largely nonpartisan government health and scientific agencies.

dr. carmona, 57, served as surgeon general for one four-year term, from 2002 to 2006, but was not asked to serve a second. before being nominated, he was in the army special forces, earned two purple hearts in the vietnam war and was a trauma surgeon and leader of the pima county, ariz., swat team. he received a bachelor’s degree, in biology and chemistry, in 1976 and his m.d. in 1979, both from the university of california, san francisco. he is now vice chairman of canyon ranch, a resort and residential development company.

on issue after issue, dr. carmona said, the administration made decisions about important public health issues based solely on political considerations, not scientific ones.

“i was told to stay away from those because they'd already decided which way they want to go,” dr. carmona said.

he described attending a meeting of bush officials in which the subject of global warming was discussed. the officials concluded that global warming was a liberal cause and dismissed it, he said.

“and i said to myself, ‘i realize why i’ve been invited. they want me to discuss the science because they obviously don’t understand the science,’ ” he said. “i was never invited back.”

dr. carmona testified under oath at a hearing before the house oversight and government reform committee headed by representative henry a. waxman, democrat of california. the topic was strengthening the office of the surgeon general. dr. c. everett koop, surgeon general in the reagan administration, and dr. david satcher, surgeon general during the clinton administration and the first year of the administration of george w. bush, also testified.

dr. koop, said he had been discouraged by top officials in the reagan administration from discussing the aids crisis. he did so anyway.

all three men urged major changes in the way the surgeon general is chosen and the way the office is financed.

[Mortified Penguin]: Yo, Bush rules, man! ...*eats ramen*... I think we need to put more troops in Iraq...

[kduncan]: You're entitled to your opinion, even if you are wrong.

[Killopkie]: Bush told America what he was going to do before they even elected him. Got no right to bitch about it if you ask me.

[kduncan]: Not everyone in the US voted for Bush. In fact, in the 2000 election, the majority of Americans voted for Gore.

[kduncan]: Lol Curst.

Some great stuff. Laughed so hard I cried.. really.

[Mortified Penguin]: That was the worst thing I've ever seen... I hate that guy...

[Curst]: If you like Bill Maher´s act you can watch an older show here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrP_ydqw7IY

[kduncan]: For anyone who is still convinced that the US invasion of Iraq was not about oil..

MSNBC News Services
17 Septemeber 2007

WASHINGTON - Clarifying a controversial comment in his new memoir, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said he told the White House before the Iraq war that removing Saddam Hussein was “essential” to secure world oil supplies, according to an interview published on Monday.

Greenspan, who wrote in his memoir that “the Iraq War is largely about oil,” said in a Washington Post interview that while securing global oil supplies was “not the administration’s motive,” he had presented the White House before the 2003 invasion with the case for why removing the then-Iraqi leader was important for the global economy.

“I was not saying that that’s the administration’s motive,” Greenspan said in the interview conducted on Saturday. “I’m just saying that if somebody asked me, ’Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?’ I would say it was essential.”

In his new book “The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World,” Greenspan wrote: “I’m saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil.”

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Sunday rejected the comment, which echoed long-held complaints of many critics that a key motivating force in the war was to maintain U.S. access to the rich oil supplies in Iraq.

Appearing on ABC’s “This Week,” Gates said, “I have a lot of respect for Mr. Greenspan.” But he disagreed with his comment about oil being a leading motivating factor in the war.

“I know the same allegation was made about the Gulf War in 1991, and I just don’t believe it’s true,” Gates said.

“I think that it’s really about stability in the Gulf. It’s about rogue regimes trying to develop weapons of mass destruction. It’s about aggressive dictators,” Gates said.

Greenspan retired in January 2006 after more than 18 years as chairman of the Fed, the U.S. central bank, which regulates monetary policy.

He has been conducting a round of interviews coinciding with the release of his book, which goes on sale on Monday.

In The Washington Post interview, Greenspan said at the time of the invasion he believed like President George W. Bush that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction “because Saddam was acting so guiltily trying to protect something.”

But Greenspan’s main support for Saddam’s ouster was economically motivated, the Post reported.

“My view is that Saddam, looking over his 30-year history, very clearly was giving evidence of moving towards controlling the Straits of Hormuz, where there are 17, 18, 19 million barrels a day” passing through,” Greenspan said.

Even a small disruption could drive oil prices as high as $120 a barrel and would mean “chaos” to the global economy, Greenspan told the newspaper.

Given that, “I’m saying taking Saddam out was essential,” he said. But he added he was not implying the war was an oil grab, the Post said.

Greenspan, who in his memoir criticized Bush and congressional Republicans for abandoning fiscal discipline and putting politics ahead of sound economics, also expressed dismay with the Democratic Party in an interview with The Wall Street Journal published on Monday.

Greenspan told the Journal he was “fairly close” to former President Bill Clinton’s economic advisers, but added, “The next administration may have the Clinton administration name, but the Democratic Party ... has moved ... very significantly in the wrong direction.” He cited its populist bent, especially its skepticism of free trade. Clinton’s wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton, is the Democratic presidential front-runner.

Greenspan, a self-described libertarian Republican, told the Journal he was not sure how he would vote in the 2008 election.

“I just may not vote,” he was quoted as saying, adding, ”I’m saddened by the whole political process.”

Meanwhile, a German magazine reported that Greenspan said it is possible that the euro could replace the U.S. dollar as the reserve currency of choice.

According to an advance copy of an interview to be published in Thursday’s edition of Stern, Greenspan said that the dollar is still slightly ahead in its use as a reserve currency, but added that “it doesn’t have all that much of an advantage” anymore.

The euro has been soaring against the U.S. currency in recent weeks, hitting all-time high of $1.3927 last week as the dollar has fallen on turbulent market conditions stemming from the ongoing U.S. subprime crisis. The Fed meets this week and is expected to lower its benchmark interest rate from the current 5.25 percent.

Greenspan said that at the end of 2006, some 25 percent of all currency reserves held by central banks were held in euros, compared to 66 percent for the U.S. dollar.

In terms of being used as a payment for cross-border transactions, the euro is trailing the dollar only slightly with 39 percent to 43 percent.

Greenspan said the European Central Bank has become “a serious factor in the global economy.”

He said the increased usage of the euro as a reserve currency has led to a lowering of interest rates in the euro zone, which has “without any doubt contributed to the current economic growth.”

[Mortified Penguin]: ...point being? ...*eats ramen*...

[kduncan]: The point being that the point of the Iraqi invasion was as we have stated in this forum previously: Oil.

[Mortified Penguin]: That's a good enough reason to go to war...

[kduncan]: lol.. sorry, but to rape another nation of its natural resources is NEVER a good enough reason to go to war.

[Mortified Penguin]: Sure it is! ...besides... we have yet to get any oil from them...

[kduncan]: Actually, that's not entirely true. US oil companies, along with several Asian and European oil companies, were buying Iraqi oil DURING the oil embargo. And consider this, you are saying that it is ok for a foreign entity to invade the US for natural resources we may have and they want. What if Canada decided to slant drill in the arctic to steal the US oil reserves.. sort of like Kuwait did to Iraq.. is that acceptable? And should the US declare war against Canada if Canada decided to do that?

Apparently I live by different moral rules than you, I don't believe that it is okay for me to beat up and steal from my neighbor simply because my neighbor has something that I like or want. That applies not only on a personal level.. but on a global level as well.

[Mortified Penguin]: If Canada ever gets strong enough to steal from the U.S., then they should...

[kduncan]: By Patrick Healy
Updated: 10:58 p.m. CT Oct 5, 2007

The four leading Republican presidential candidates have aligned themselves with President Bush’s veto on Wednesday of an expanded health insurance program for children, once again testing the political risk of appearing in lock step with a president who has low approval ratings and some critics of the veto within their party.

It is yet another issue — like the Iraq war, North Korea’s nuclear program and the management of the federal response to Hurricane Katrina — where the Republican contenders are treading delicately as they gauge how to position themselves with an unpopular president on contentious issues. While all four are defending the veto, some in full-throated language, the candidates are at the same time forgoing praise of Mr. Bush’s judgment on the issue or of his leadership in general.

The candidates’ embrace of the veto puts them in closer step with Mr. Bush, however, than they have been on some other major issues; former Gov. Mitt Romney, for instance, has warned the United States against becoming overly trusting of North Korea’s promise to dismantle its nuclear program. Some of the Republicans have also avoided sounding as optimistic as Mr. Bush about Iraq’s future. And Senator John McCain of Arizona, among others, has assailed the administration’s competence on both Iraq strategy and the federal response to Hurricane Katrina.

As for the children’s insurance veto, the candidates, in aligning with Mr. Bush, are mindful of the concerns of fiscal conservatives that expanding the program could result in huge future costs. Unlike with Iraq or Hurricane Katrina, Mr. Bush’s capacity to be a drag on the candidates’ fortunes is smaller on the insurance veto, Republican analysts say, because the veto is not especially unpopular with Republican primary voters. They are the current target audience for the candidates, according to their campaign advisers, so the electoral gamble of supporting the veto — if not Mr. Bush — is relatively modest at this point.

“I don’t think the candidates can run with the president, and on the president’s positions, over the long haul because eventually they will trip you up,” said Rich Galen, a Republican consultant who is advising Fred D. Thompson, one of the leading candidates. Mr. Thompson has been strongly defending the veto.

“You need to decide where you are on any given issue — not necessarily where the president is — and go from there,” Mr. Galen said. “Democrats can say this is a Bush veto or a Bush position, but Republicans don’t even mention that because it doesn’t make sense to talk that way to Republican primary voters right now.”

Stance puts contenders in cross hairs
Even so, for the last two days, the veto has put the Republican contenders in the cross hairs of Democratic fire aimed at Mr. Bush. Congressional Democrats, as well as some senior Republicans, have criticized the president for killing a bill that would cover four million more children.

Senator John McCain, campaigning in South Carolina yesterday, demonstrated the balancing act for the Republicans by saying that he supported the veto, yet also favored an expansion of the insurance program, at least philosophically.
_____________________________________________

I have never seen such a cowardly, selfish, mean-spirited group of people than the current crop of Republican candidates. They spend billions of tax-payer doallars on an illegal invasion of a foreign country to steal that nations natural resources -- a resource that Americans don't even need, and reject basic health care for American children. As a parent myself, it makes me want to hit them over the head and say, "What the hell were you thinking?!" Republicans need to get a friggin moral compass that actually works.

Personal note to John McCain -- Buy a god damned backbone with your taxpayer-provided healthcare plan.

[Harms_Way]: Can I join? I hate Bush so much!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mortified Penguin]: I certainly hope Giuliani wins the election... *eats ramen*...

[kduncan]: I wonder how Bush feels about Musharraf now.

I wonder how Bush's supporters feel about their president now.. odd how they've fled this wiki, no?

[Mortified Penguin]: No we haven't... *eats ramen*... woo Bush!

[kduncan]: Woo Scott McClellen you mean.

Personally, I think Scott McClellen is as slimy as the rest of the Bushies, but still -- another ex-bushy creeps out of the shadows to tell what's really been going on in the Bush administration.

Penguin.. are you starting to get the picture yet? How many people who used to be part of the administration have to come forward and tell the American people what was really going on before you start to get the full picture.

Colin Powell.
George Tenet
Scott McClellen
Alan Greenspan

There are more, but these are the heavy hitters.

I'm amazed that. despite growing evidence -- evidence that is compounded almost daily -- you still refuse to see that this administration is, well, creepy. What is happening in America today is far, far worse than the McCarthyism of the 1950's. American citizens have been arrested and held without benefit of trial. Corporations have been given the right to take the property of private citizens. Our library records and purchases at bookstores can be subpoenaed. Students have been denied basic human rights. Women are denied basic human rights based on religious the religious convictions of a minority. Certain political groups are denied travel via public transport. People are pulled aside and searched at random based solely on appearance.

Is America becoming a fascist country? You bet!

[Mortified Penguin]: Darn straight it is! ...*eats ramen*... woo fascism!

[Merlin Mab]: Underground movement to have politicians responsible to make domestic currency values go back to pre  kissinger /thacher world rip off that was pulled off by them in regan admin.. pass it around through  the web
the only politicans who will be elected are the ones who revalue the $$ back to 1959 rates 

[chasingpeace]: Ugh...Guiliani? He's just a bad guy. Who puts public security detail on their wife and their girlfriend? A dumbass, that's who.

[kduncan]: You always have interesting links, Monk.

[kduncan]: I'm finding the current American primaries interesting, mostly because of the lack of any real diversity among the candidates. But also due to the focus by the media on campaign funds. The media pushes the candidates with the most funding maknig it unlikely that a true "candidate of the people" will ever get elected president in the US. Americans must stop allowing corporate funding of their leaders, it's the only way the people's voice will ever be heard.

I think I'll write in Kucinich when I cast my vote.

[kduncan]: In Florida there is a dangerous proposal on the table -- CP0020. It is a proposal that will allow the State to use tax dollars to fund churches and religion based projects. I believe strongly in the absolute freedom of religion for ALL people, I find this proposal not only un-American and unethical, but also deeply disturbing.

People everywhere deserve "government-free” religion, and as Americans we are entitled to expect government-free religions, and religion-free government. Government-funded religion only ensures religious discrimination, strife and controversy. This is a dangerous proposal with far-reaching implications for many Floridians. Government funded religion squelches religious liberty – a core American value; it does not encourage religious liberty.

Religious discrimination in American is now part of our immediate future. Be prepared to expect the worst -- the American holocaust is beginning.. and anyone who is not of the fundamentalist extreme Christian right should be very, very afraid.

..and so it begins.

[Doormat]: That really sucks, can anyone stop it, or is Bushhead supporting it?

[kduncan]: Voters writing letters to their representatives can help stop it. But really, it's up for a vote, and a vote for anything that supports religious conservatism in Florida has a very good chance of passing.

This is the state that said minors cannot get medical care or advise with the approval of their parents. This is the state that says a woman must view an ultrasound of a her fetus befor e having an abortion. This is the state in which a married woman cannot take out a loan without the signature of her husband, though he can take out a loan without her approval.

Are we in trouble here? mm.. my guess would be yeah.

[Doormat]: That's ridiculous. It sounds like they're in the friggin' dark ages. 

[kduncan]: mm.. yep.

Add to that the fact that our education system here in Florida is no longer (legally) able to teach evolution, and if they do they must also teach creationism -- and there's a BIG push to have public schools teach only creationism -- and you can see that we're in big trouble in the US.

For S&G (shitzngrinz), check out this site: http://www.creationmuseum.org/

[Doormat]: Are you fk'n serious? Woooooow. Even universities? Ridiculous. 

Ugh. That sounds like that one University year that creationism could be used on a final Biology exam (makes all the course material useless eh?). I think all the negative feedback phased that out. But I'm surprised that even happened here in Canada. 

[kduncan]: No, not in universities.

[Imperator]: Wow, you people are doing an excellent job of picking which facts to tout and which to carefully obscure. When you don't like the current leader in office, you blame their powerful connections, or big business, or most of all, oil companies because the American people couldn't possibly be stupid enough to elect someone that everyone hates, right? Wrong. Bush won two elections fair and square despite the liberal hatred spewing out of CNN and just about every other news media source. You fools bash President George W. Bush and scream and cry about how you hate him so much but forget that it was Bush who has kept America safe for the last seven years, cut taxes, expanded federal wild life parks, guaranteed Taiwan's liberty, freed the people of Afghanistan, overthrown a mass murderer and stood up to the president of Iran who follows a sect of Islam that plans to bring on Armageddon by developing nuclear weapons. But I guess none of that matters because Bush is just that horrible.

And why don't you guys show the damn dates for these comments? Are you hiding from something?

[Doormat]: You forgot "destroyed the American economy." 

It's funny that you would accuse CNN of spewing Liberal hatred when that network also hosts Ann Coulter. 

[Imperator]: Are you saying that the rest of CNN is not liberal?

[kduncan]: 1. Bush did not win "fair and square". In Florida in 2000, and again in ohio in 2004, thousands of voters were disenfranchised, ie: they were not allowed their consitutionally granted right to vote. If you're going to talk about how "fair" the elections were, at least do your research first.

2. The worst terrorist attack ever to occur on American soil took place under the Bush presidency. It's an interesting spin that the same president who had the worst attack ever under his watch is the same president who tells us that it's his administration that "keeps us safe".

3. So, tell me again why the US invaded Iraq. We were told by Bush that is was because we in imminent danger of attack by Iraq. Did Bush lie to congress and to the American people? Are things better in Iraq now than they were before the US invaded Iraq? Bush has the rather dubious reputation of having conducted the first ever pre-emptive attack against a foreign government in US history -- not exactly a shining star on his presidential report card. The truth is, things have gotten WORSE in Iraq, not better. Before the US invasion Iraq was the most liberal of middle eastern countries, not the most restrictive. The reputation of being the most restrictive goes to our friends (Bush's term, not mine), the Saudi. The US invasion of Iraq has actually ALLOWED Al Quaeda to gain a foothold in Iraq. The Iraqi's who were fighting Hussein's government were actually the same group that supports Al Quaeda.

4. The news media is neither liberal nor conservative in nature. The FCC is a government watchdog over all communications that use federal ariwaves, ie: radio and television. Since the head of the FCC is an appointed position, it stands to reason that the head of the FCC follows the basic ideologies of whatever party is in control at the time. Conservative control means conservative news media. If you want the absolute best news coverage, watch C-SPAN and get the news direct with no filtering from the puppet media.

I do have to say though, Alexander2War, you are a good American -- you don't question what your government tells you, exactly as they want. Keep up the good work!

[Imperator]: 1. If Bush had lost, the Republicans would have said the same pish posh against Gore.

2. Pearl Harbor happened under FDR and he went on to win WWII. Not many people hold it against him for not being aware of a total surprise attack. No one knew about 9-11 or Pearl Harbor. You can't blame the current president.

3. Indeed I admit that there were many misconceptions in the beginning but now all the problems Bush claimed existed now do. That is all the reasoning I need to support the war. I don't defend his poor intelligence agencies though. Excuse me? Saddam's tyrannical, totalitarian rule was "liberal"?

4. My jaw just hit the floor. You can't honestly say that the media is wholly conservative. That is an absolute lie. The only conservative channel on t.v. is Fox News and any other conservative media resides in talk radio. Liberalism controls the rest of the media. Perhaps you don't read the New York Times, the Washington Post, or watch CNN. Or perhaps you do and their propaganda touting fairness has convinced you.

5. I always enjoy being accused of being in the pocket of big oil or under the direct control of the fascist government in Washington. I've noticed that whenever anyone says something conservative, liberals are quick to say that their opinion doesn't count because they're, well, conservative. It makes me laugh. :-)

[Mortified Penguin]: I completely agree with Alexander2war... damn liberals... *eats ramen*...

[Imperator]: There's a book out titled "If Liberals Had Any Brains, They Would Be Conservatives". :-)

[Doormat]: "and stood up to the president of Iran who follows a sect of Islam that plans to bring on Armageddon by developing nuclear weapons."

If you're going to judge someone based on their religion, it's only fair for us to judge you on your age. 

[Imperator]: Ha ha ha! What kind of logic are you using? I think in this case, religion is a perfectly valid point since it ties directly into Iranian foreign policy decisions of late. Now, what were you saying about my age?

[Imperator]: Silence. Exactly.
Now I thought this poll was really interesting. The question is "who would you vote for if Obama, McCain, and George W. Bush were running?" and it's answered mostly by conservatives: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/12342/

[Doormat]: Considering the website advertizes conspiracy theories regarding cures for cancer and patches that extract toxins from your body overnight, I find it hard to take seriously. 

Anyway, internet polls are pointless, as anyone can hide their IP address using something like Hotspot shield and vote multiple times. 

Maybe if it was Time magazine, I'd believe it more, but even then there is bias. Perhaps I'd believe a census.

The silence is probably because nobody wants to answer your questions because they've been brought up so much. Consider looking through the comments or actually going to the debate page. 

[Mortified Penguin]: No one is going to use a proxy to hide their IP and vote several hundreds times on something. That would take several hours... now, if someone were to Tamper Data or otherwise save the website to their desktop and edit it and reopen with their own changes to the poll, that would be a lot quicker. However, most people that do that make it very obvious that they've tampered with the data. They'll put an unrealistic number such as "100%", whereas the other options still have some sort of percentage, meaning there would be well over 100 percent. Also, just because the results of the poll don't suit your beliefs, that doesn't mean the poll is inaccurate, biased, or even felonious (mmm... bolognious...). ...*eats ramen*... Bush rules!

[Imperator]: @ [Doormat]: So you're basing the accuracy of the poll on the paid advertisments on the site that are totally unrelated? Nice, a typical liberal way to avoid the facts.

@ [Mortified Penguin]: Yeah! Bush rules! Literally...

[Mortified Penguin]: Oh, that Bush... he's trying to get things done before he has to leave office...

[Imperator]: I think he waited about three years too long to get started...

[Mortified Penguin]: I'm sure he'll catch Osama! You can do it, Bush!

[Imperator]: He actually could and I hope to God (not Allah) that he does. It would give McCain a big boost too.

[Mortified Penguin]: McCain would win for sure, especially if Bush personally went over there and caught Osama with his own two hands...

[Imperator]: Nah, the liberals would say that it was just an Osama look-alike and it's a government conspiracy.

[Mortified Penguin]: They might even try to say that Osama was actually innocent and it was all a government plot to kill a poor innocent man and start a war with some Middle Eastern countries to steal their oil...

[Imperator]: Well it's not America's fault that the oil is in the wrong country and we have to go get it ourselves...

[Mortified Penguin]: So, tell me... do you people think we should pull out of Iraq?

[Doormat]: No, just stay there 'till your whole economy collapses and you lapse into anarchy (Y)

[Imperator]: Or until the Iraqi government is completely stable and we've won the war. The second part is already complete.

[Mortified Penguin]: We're the most powerful country on the planet. It's our duty to help out smaller countries like Iraq... and since we've already begun rebuilding over there, it would be idiotic for us to pull out now. We got rid of the old government, now we have to fix up the new one. What kind of people would we be if we just went over there, destroyed the government, and left?

[Imperator]: Romans. Which wouldn't be too bad either but liberals are always complaining about something they call ethics so they've basically called their own cut-and-run plan unethical...

[Doormat]: You completely missed my economy point. Reread.

[Imperator]: American economic problems don't stem from the war. It might play a small part becuase it increases the debt but that's already so high it barely matters anymore.

[Doormat]: Do you realize how much you've spent on the War in Iraq?

Let's just say a few hundred billions. 

[Imperator]: So? We're about to dump 700 billion into the economy because some bankers were greedy and that's had a bigger effect than a war that's been going on for years.

[Mortified Penguin]: Stupid bankers... gave out too many loans to stupid people... *eats ramen*...

[Doormat]: Wait a few years until you want to go to college/university, you may well be one of those stupid people with loans. 

That is, if there are any banks still around. 

Greedy bankers have little effect when all of America's energy and money is being poured into warfare. 

[Imperator]: Those loans were made to people that couldn't afford to buy a house, not college students.

All the banks that have collapsed are giant corporations that only do risky loans with big returns and they don't even do regular banking anymore. Regional banks are perfectly stable and safe. The companies that have gone down deserved it.

If the banks have no effect, then why are they having a massive effect?

[Mortified Penguin]: If America's economy collapses, the rest of the world's will as well. Great Depression II! ...*eats ramen*... and do you know what got us out of the first depression...? ...a good ol' fashion world war. So do you know what we're going to have to do if the economy fails? That's right! WWIII! ...I can't wait!

[Doormat]: Ever hear of student loans? Also, do you know how rare it is for people to actually throw down the few hundred grands to purchase a house? Mortgage and loans are often the only choice. 

I'm sure you'll be drafted. America is too weak from Iraq to pull off another war. That is, unless they want world scorn by attacking Iran or suicide by attacking North Korea. The world's economy doesn't depend on America either. 

[Mortified Penguin]: If I'm drafted, I wouldn't mind too much. And the army isn't weak at all... we've got plenty of soldiers still in reserve over here. And yeah, the world's economy would crumble if the U.S.'s did.

North Korea isn't on our hitlist anymore. Even if they were, we could destroy them pretty easily...

[Imperator]: Strangly enough, I have heard of student loans and I fully understand that few homes are paid for in cash however the loans that were made were made to people that knew they couldn't afford it and the banks knew they couldn't afford it and sometimes the banks even lended 150% of the cost of the home with no down payment at all. Pure greed.

Please avoid pretending you understand something that you clearly don't. Stock markets around the world are falling just as the U.S. stock market falls. Tell me they aren't linked.

And [Mortified Penguin] is right again. The U.S. easily has the strength to crush Iran and now N. Korea is cooperating with the U.N. nuclear watchdog. You shouldn't listen to all your biased sources so much because they're clearly underestimating America.

[Doormat]: I'm sure nuclear warfare is on the top of the list of things wanted, but then again you two have a few years to become less ignorant, or not. 

It's not that the army is weak, it's the couple thousands that die there. It can be you or anyone. 

I don't see our economy crumbling over here. Sure tuition has gone up a few hundred (~$5000 for the year), but that's nothing compared to the US $10000+. Maybe war funds can go towards education? 

But as long as the US is the "World Police," that's not going to change. 

[Imperator]: Thank you for avoiding nearly every argument I made and proving me right. As for nuclear war, the only nation that might actually do such a thing is Iran so all the more reason to destroy them first.

[BarleySinger]: well [Imperator], as for Nuke war, the USA is the only nation in the world to EVER use them on anybody (WW II) which is WHY so many nations want them. Outside of the USA, nobody anywhere really trusts the US government. I no longer live there, so I hear it a lot (with my accent).

As for the economy...I am a bit older than many folk here, so I have a longer perspective on things. The economic crash in the USA (the popping of the housing bubble) happened because that bubble was 'floated' as a bandage to the economy that Reagan screwed up. The federal reserve did it as an attempt to keep the country from utter collapse. 

Back in the 1980s, Reagan (who was so messed up from senility that he BELIEVED that the movies he was in were REAL LIFE) ran up a huge debt in millitary arms, trying to 'out arm' the USSR in an arms race to make them go broke.

The USSR was (in fact) doomed to fail at roughly the same time regardless of Reagans spending spree. They couldn't even manage to move food by train from the farmers to the people. That was rather well predicted. 

However (despite facts to the contrary) the vast majority of 'neocons' today are STILL certain that THEY brought down the USSR...in the same manner of "delusional certainty" that the Taliban today has when they state that a few hundred of their opium stoned religious nut "soldiers" stopped the USSR's war on Afghanistan (they didn't...it was the funding from the USA that got them trained and armed). Besides, that invasion was always doomed. It was their version of Vietnam. Afghanistan had been at war (mostly 'gorilla' fighting' ) for many hundreds of years before the USSR showed up looking for a deep water port.

Anyway, the "housing bubble" started with the creation of a large amount of fake money in the federal reserve computers. They didn't even bother printing "funny money" in the manner they did for all that cash that disappeared in Iraq. The result (as expected) was that all the real paper money was worth less, inflation spiraled, there were a lot more homeless...and they just kept pumping up that bubble (Greenspan was in charge of the fed back them) every time the economy looked like it was finally going to adjust back to reality and crash for a while.

Eventually, the deregulation that Reagan did on the investment and banking world took its toll and people took advantage of how greedy they could be and get away with it, selling houses to anybody who had 'a pulse'.

However the actually economic downturn WAS going to happen and would have been much smaller if it had been allowed to happen back in 1989.

Thank you Ronnie for screwing the entire world.

-- and --- [Mortified Penguin]:

WWII 'helped' the USA get out of the depression, with very large (worse) economic effects in the long run (standard war footing economy...see also "1984"...which is why the US has tried so very hard since then to contrive a new enemy each time people stop believing in the current one. BUT...the largest factor in that recovery from the depression in the USA was the massive NEW DEAL infrastructure projects, the building of roads and damns and power plants (etc) which creative huge numbers of jobs and put money into the pockets of the poorest people (the laborers)...and those people HAD to spend that cash on food immediately, so the money did not sit stagnant, and when that money started moving around it got the economy moving again. Before that, many people had gone back to bartering for food (you know the sign..."will work for food").

The very same thing has been done for THIS economic crash all over the world today (except in the USA of course). Money was put into average peoples hands...except in the USA where it went to the bankers of course... which is why the economy here in Australia is so very good right now.

[BarleySinger]: Oh yes...and [Mortified Penguin]:...have you ever heard the myth of "The White Mans Burden"? Your ideas about the duty of the USA toward Iraq sounds very reminiscent of it. 

The White Mans Burden included helping all those 'poor non-white savages', who were poor because everything they used to have was stolen by westerners during European colonization.

IRAQ used to have a democratic government. Their democratic government was overthrown by the USA, who put Saddam in as the State Department's man (stooge) in Iraq. The US armed, funded and trained his soldiers and torturers...and supported him during ALL the horrible things he did. A big piece of Saddam's job (as stooge) was oppressing all the political groups who were interested in socialism, and all the ethnic groups that wanted an Islamic state.

The fact is that the US government put lots of horrible people into office all over the world, often just to get rid of democratic leaders whose only 'crime' was to treat the USSR and the USA in the same manner...as foreign nations. After the fall of the USSR, they started going round the world, declaring war on the dangerous people they had put into office (trying to clean up the mess made by 100 years of very bad foreign policy).

[Mortified Penguin]: The New Deal didn't work. It wasn't what caused the economic recovery. It only served to make things worse.

And 'The White Mans Burden'? I'm not even white though! I'm Mexican (and yes, I do support Arizona's new law).

As for that second bout of idiocy, what's your point? Are you saying we shouldn't have stopped Saddam? We were just cleaning up our mess. Would you rather he still be in office? Bush was actually man enough to put a stop to one of America's old mistakes. He should be praised for his excellent leadership.

The money did go to the bankers, yes. And most of the bankers are Jewish. And Obama's administration (the majority of which are Jewish) bailed the bankers and companies out. All while the media (controlled by the Jews) has been making us think this is all okay. Am I saying the Jews control the world? Maybe. Am I saying the holocaust never happened? Sure, why not. Am I saying the Jews are responsible for the unnecessary murder of thousands of Palestinian men, women, and children? Yes I am! But that doesn't really have anything to do with Bush...

Also, did you know that Bob's Diner is having a sale on half-eaten shoes? Dipped in the finest pesticides available at Wal-Mart, these shoes are not only delicious, but also healthy! Probably. We weren't able to finish the product testing, because our subjects kept mysteriously dying.

[BarleySinger]: Well [Mortified Penguin] OH MY FUCKING GOD. You're one of those ZOG nuts. You are not worth responding to as you are either : a troll, a nut, or too ignorant to bother with. I have better things to do with my time that respond to any of those. Oh well..You can lead a horse to water, but you can't give it opposable thumbs.

[Mortified Penguin]: Do you really? Or is it that you can't respond to any of those? As for being a 'ZOG nut', you can't really be telling me that the government isn't run by Jews, can you? It's quite obvious that it is. I didn't say it was a bad thing though. There are much worse groups that could be in control.

Number of comments: 4779
Older comments: (Last 200)

200 older comments
(0, 0-239):

Show these comments on your site

Elftown - Wiki, forums, community and friendship. Sister-site to Elfwood