Bush Possibly Impeached

[Tock]

. . . even though he's sent over 500 Americans to die in Iraq for nothing, hasn't reached that point . . .
--Tock

I know this is dead but bro whats that crap about 500 Americans sent to die for nothing? You must be as stupid as your family looks in your av, they died defending us and our way of life you dumb f*ck. I can't believe that someone would even say that, where are you from, france? Those people that had to decide weather to jump to their deaths or burn alive is nothing to you? I guess you didn't loose anyone on 9-11 even though by the looks of your family a little cleaning of the gene pool might not be such a bad idea. This is meant as a flame because I can't believe any human on this earth that has a brain can say that those soilders are getting killed for nothing. It saddens me to think that scum like you get to benefit in what they are doing over there while your little a s s is sitting over here saying that they are accomplishing nothing. Unbelievable.

Your're right . . . "for nothing" was the wrong phrase. Those guys died following the orders of the Commander In Chief who's supposed to know what he's doing. But he doesn't. "Needlessly" is what I should have said, because there were no WMD's like Bush said there were. Had he not been so anxious to start a war, he could have waited the 60 days the UN asked for, and then had multilateral participation in the war. With UN backing, the Arabs (and the rest of the world) wouldn't perceive the US as a big bully. And now, Bush needs the UN to help in slowing down the proliferation of nuclear technology--he's discovering that the US can't go it alone after all . . .
And for what it's worth, I put my time in the military, was available for President Ford to send my butt off to Korea when a US vessel strayed into their coastal waters and was captured . . . I'd probably still be in right now if they hadn't kicked my ass out just for being gay. I liked the military life, it suited me well, had a great time. Woulda been nice to retire in 2005 with 30 years in . . .
Have you done your time in the military yet?
--Tock
btw--no need to call names . . . and no, that's not my family in my avatar . . .

[Tock]

1) ewwww, I won't touch that.

2) Tock yes, I will be paying for YOU to retire. But since you have such a huge problem with republicans and how they spend money, lets think of the dumbasses who signed the bill for social security in the first place....DEMOCRATS, you're beloved party. They ****ed us in the ass the second they signed that bill back in the 30's.

3) What were we suppose to do when we got bombed/attacked and lost 6,000 people in a couple hours to terrorists? Sit around and say, hey, lets just fix Isreal. You got to be kidding me. I don't see how you can be pissy when WE as a nation were attacked and had to go up in arms..

.

1) Ok.
2) Back in the 30's . . . in the middle of the Great Depression . . . unemployment was around 25%, life was awful for lots of people, and if you check back in the dustbins of history, both the socialist AND the communist parties were getting lots of new members. It made sense back then to our grandparents with hungry kids, standing in bread lines, willing to work 14 hour days for a dollar a day, that the gov't should take the resources from those who had it and give it to those who were desperately in need. Franklin Roosevelt knew that if he didn't come up with a few social programs to releive some of the pain Americans were going through, then the US would dump both the Democratic and Republican parties and would most likely turn socialist, maybe communist.
Roosevelt's social programs of the 30's blunted the advances of the American socialist and communist parties. The WPA cost plenty, but it gave millions of unemployed Americans hope for the future. Social Security gave the old folks a few $$$ to live on, bringing them up from abject destitution into degrading poverty. But it was an improvement over what they had.
. I agree that Social Security has probably grown too big, tries to do too much. Back when the program started, each person collecting benefits had around 25 people paying into the system. In a few years, there will be 2 or 3 people paying into the system for each beneficiary. Not good. Your taxes are gonna suck. And neither Republicans nor Democrats are gonna change anything until we have an economic crisis that makes change necessary (Americans typically don't make changes until they absolutely have to).
Look, the Republicans have the Executive branch, have had the Legislative branch, and Republicans have named more Supreme Court Judges than the Democrats. They could have changed Social Security, but they won't, 'cause it's politically unpopular to cut entitlement programs, especially programs for old people, 'cause they vote in greater percentages than young people ('cause young folks haven't learned they need to participate in the election process). So don't rag on me about the Democrats of the 30's starting Social Security . . . if it wasn't for Franklin Roosevelt, we'd probably be living under a socialist system nowadays.

3) The US would not have been targets of Arab terrorists had the US not been perceived as supporting Israeli intrusion on Palestinian territory. Plain and simple. That's the #1 thorn in the flesh, the big central problem, the fly in the ointment, the main reason they hate us. Problem is that in the US, it would be politically unpopular to pressure Israel to pull back to the boundries the UN set for it back in 1947. Special interest groups would withhold $$$ from any political candidate seeking re-election. So change ain't gonna happen. But anyone familiar with the whole Arab mess can tell ya, the key to solving the whole Middle East problem is to find an answer to the Palestinian question.
Yah, and as any doctor will tell ya, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If US foreign policy had done the right thing years ago, we wouldn't have the problems we've got today. Wouldn't be any Arab terrorists. Wouldn't have been any Arab oil embargos. Probably wouldn't even be an OPEC organization. And, most importantly, there wouldn't have been any 9/11 bombing. No future threats of bombing. No civil liberty-robbing Patriot Act. No need for security at airports, subways, etc. If only the US had done the right thing way back in the late 40's and 50's.

--Tock

[bermich]

TOCK. This is just the impression I get from reading most of your posts. Almost EVERY post you type has the word GAY in it. Do you have a lot of built up anger towards society. Do you feel you need to be embraced by everyone in order to feel accepted?
Your opinion of being in IRAQ as pointless is merely that, your opinion. But when you say US soldiers are dying in IRAQ for no reason is F U C K E D up.
As far as the US supporting ISREAL. Why the FU CK should we not support them? Is there a good reason why we shouldnt? Should we support someone else? Who can we support that will make you feel comfortable and not give someone a reason to kill thousands of people in a day??

You are seriously FU CKED in the head for actually coming up with an excuse as to why the twin towers got planes flown right into them.
You said if we didnt support Israel, we wouldnt have terrorists hating us and killing thousands of people. DUDE, you need some serious wake up call to reality and you can take your resentment towards the US and the straight sex to another country.

[bermich]

1)
Yah, and as any doctor will tell ya, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If US foreign policy had done the right thing years ago, we wouldn't have the problems we've got today. Wouldn't be any Arab terrorists. Wouldn't have been any Arab oil embargos. Probably wouldn't even be an OPEC organization. And, most importantly, there wouldn't have been any 9/11 bombing. No future threats of bombing. No civil liberty-robbing Patriot Act. No need for security at airports, subways, etc. If only the US had done the right thing way back in the late 40's and 50's.

--Tock

One more thing. HIND SIGHT is so easy to talk about. You are such a great MONDAY morning quarter-back saying how Sundays plays should have been different.
An ounce of prevention is a pound of cure. You quote yourself yet you dont even agree with anything you say. Isnt being in IRAY an OUNCE of prevention??
You say if US foriegn policy did it right in the 40s this wouldnt happen.
Well Im sure you would have disagreed with US foriegn policy in the 40s also. You would then proceed to say that WWI could have been prevented IF:

Give it up. Give up all your PEACE WILL SAVE US bull****.
An ounce of prevention. LMAO.

[bermich]

. . . even though he's sent over 500 Americans to die in Iraq for nothing, hasn't reached that point . . .
--Tock






there were no WMD's like Bush said there were. Had he not been so anxious to start a war, he could have waited the 60 days the UN asked for, and then had multilateral participation in the war. With UN backing, the Arabs (and the rest of the world) wouldn't perceive the US as a big bully. And now, Bush needs the UN to help in slowing down the proliferation of nuclear technology--he's discovering that the US can't go it alone after all . . .
. .

Who didnt support us? Last I thought, we had some 60 countries backing us.
Who didnt support us? France, Russia?? Think 60 days would have helped even though we already waited 10 years???
God I could just reply to every sentence you type for days and laugh at each one.....

[50%Natural]

And tock, thank you. You just answered everything I have ever asked of you. You finally admitted the problems of today are the poor judgement of yesteryear. Thanks. Through that long thread you managed to make yourself look dumb for saying problems of today are problems of the current administration when you went into specific detail about HISTORY. Good job tock...its called hypocricy...do as I say, but not as I do right

[Tock]

1) TOCK. This is just the impression I get from reading most of your posts. Almost EVERY post you type has the word GAY in it. Do you have a lot of built up anger towards society. Do you feel you need to be embraced by everyone in order to feel accepted?

2) Your opinion of being in IRAQ as pointless is merely that, your opinion. But when you say US soldiers are dying in IRAQ for no reason is F U C K E D up.

3) As far as the US supporting ISREAL. Why the FU CK should we not support them? Is there a good reason why we shouldnt?

4) Should we support someone else? Who can we support that will make you feel comfortable and not give someone a reason to kill thousands of people in a day??

5) You are seriously FU CKED in the head for actually coming up with an excuse as to why the twin towers got planes flown right into them.
You said if we didnt support Israel, we wouldnt have terrorists hating us and killing thousands of people.

6) DUDE, you need some serious wake up call to reality and you can take your resentment towards the US and the straight sex to another country.

1) No, it just seems that way to you.
If you were to take a close gander at the references to the heterosexual depravity running through many of the other threads and posts, you'd think this board was sponsored by some XXX magazine. I, on the other hand, have yet to start a thread concerning the sexual attributes of some sexy fellow, or recounting gay orgies or polyamorous adventures, or mention anything about my sweetie (past or present).
. You notice my use of the "G" word for the same reason you'd notice a golf ball on a black carpet -- because it stands out from the background.
. And "resentment?" Nah, I'm past that . . . I still don't like being a second class citizen in this country, and maybe I do resent that and the people responsible for that, but after an occasional rant to blow off some steam, heck, I can truly say that some of my best friends are straight . . .
Maybe you just notice my posts 'cause you think I'm cute . . .


2) I addressed that earlier when I recanted my use of the phrase "no reason" and said I should have used the word "needless" instead.

3) How much do you know about the history of the region? The UN carved out a piece of real estate for them in what had been part of the British Empire, and which had previously been a part of the Ottoman Empire. They were supposed to live in harmony with the Palestinians who already lived there, but things didn't work out that way (I'll let you delve into those grisly details for yourself). The Palestinians who lost their property were wronged, and US foreign policy made a big mistake and supported Israel in the dispute.
Now, I'm not saying we shouldn't support Israel in preserving their 1947 UN-approved borders and in making their country secure, but we shouldn't support them when their military shoots unarmed civilians and knocks down their villages with bulldozers. When we do, the Arabs assume the US is against them, also, and that makes 'em mad at us, and when things get so desperate for them that they have nothing left to lose, they turn to terrorism as a last-ditch effort to make things right.
All that is totally unnecessary. All the US has to do is support Justice for each group in the region. It ain't rocket science.

4) We should support Justice for everyone in the region (I already said that, but it bears repeating). At this time, that would include removing the Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory (as tolerable as would be Mexicans establishing settlements in the US) and getting both sides to stop shooting each other. But just getting them back to the 1947 US boundries will go a long way to cooling Arab tempers.
Problem is, though, that Israel has its fundamentalists just like the US has 'em. Israeli fundamentalists assert that God has given them a lot of the land the Palestinians currently live on, and they've got enough influence with the Israeli gov't that when they build new settlements outside their borders, they get the military to protect 'em, which is crazy, illegal, and immoral, and guaranteed to piss off Arabs. The US has asked them not to do this, but they do it just the same . . .

5) Clever spelling of the "F" word to circumvent the censor . . .
Nevertheless, I didn't say

"if we didnt support Israel, we wouldnt have terrorists hating us and killing thousands of people."

I said,

"The US would not have been targets of Arab terrorists had the US not been perceived as supporting Israeli intrusion on Palestinian territory."

And I stand by that. They see the US as big supporters of the people who have been building settlements on their land, and it's not surprising that they resent it.


6) Nope. No resentment toward the US; I know I've got it pretty good here. F'instance, there was a recent thread on living in Thailand, and I gave the notion some consideration myself. However, as outspoken as I am on a variety of subjects, it wouldn't take long before they'd toss me in jail for speaking out against local corruption, mixing of church and state, and probably lots more. Ya, I know I rant a lot about stuff in general, it's a hobby, I suppose. I don't bear fools gladly. And most governments don't tolerate that from its citizens. I'm lucky I was born into one that does.
No resentment to the straight sex either. I don't have much patience for fools, idiots, and bigots, but that goes for both straights as well as gays. You can see for yourself . . . come on over and I'll show you how much I like straight guys . . .
lol . . . (just teasing)
--Tock

[Tock]

And tock, thank you. You just answered everything I have ever asked of you. You finally admitted the problems of today are the poor judgement of yesteryear. Thanks. Through that long thread you managed to make yourself look dumb for saying problems of today are problems of the current administration when you went into specific detail about HISTORY. Good job tock...its called hypocricy...do as I say, but not as I do right

I suppose we can attribute this post to different understandings . . .
I'm not sure what on, though, you don't post any quotes, so I'm not sure what prompts your calls of hypocrisy.
--Tock

[Animal Cracker]

BRING RONALD REAGAN BACK...So what if he is cenile...HE didnt take crap from the lybians...from the iranis..from the syrians...from the lebanese...but the house of saud in check...Groomed GHWB to be Vice then Prez...back to the question..kepp GW in..let him finish his term then go..He isnt that bad..just lib-labs wanting to detroy America..

[Tock]

God I could just reply to every sentence you type for days and laugh at each one.....

Hold some knitting needles and I'm sure we'd all be reminded of Madame DeFarge.
--Tock

[50%Natural]

I suppose we can attribute this post to different understandings . . .
I'm not sure what on, though, you don't post any quotes, so I'm not sure what prompts your calls of hypocrisy.
--Tock

well, I specifically mentioned the democratic party and social security just to tempt you into talking about it. We all know why the bill was signed(or at least those with knowledge in history) and we all know the economic situations surrounding them. Simply put, you are bashing a conservative presidency for numerous reasons. But, if you really wanted to, (in the case of social security) you can outline the reasons why it started. Hypocrisy in my eyes would be explaining one thing from a historic view point, and explaining or bashing another from a liberal or biased point. If you actually could go through all my threads talking about bush, or the economy or anything such as this, you will see I have taken a 3rd person point of view. I will explain facts and reasons that usually no one else will bother to bring up such as a historical viewpoint or explination while others hide behind current statistics and opinions to do their bashings. I respect the fact that you can debate in a calm mannner but I am unimpressed that you can change the basis of your stance in one short post.

[Tock]

Hypocrisy in my eyes would be explaining one thing from a historic view point, and explaining or bashing another from a liberal or biased point.

. . . and how have I done this?
I'm guessing we may have a misunderstanding or a miscommunication here which would be improved by presenting the specific situation clearly and making further inquiries. How 'bout we do that instead of using the "H" word?

--Tock

[bermich]

Well congrats to TOCK for a good reply to my post. Im very surprised. You handled that very well with your rebuttle. I gained some respect for you after that one.

I will argue about one statement though. The arabs would still target the US regardless of whom we support. The wester culture of society is everything they stand against. They have always hated us and we are an easy target for them.