Banned, I was BANNED! [Archive] - PlanetSide Universe

SandTrout

2003-01-12, 01:05 AM

We ban conservative disruptors who are opposed to the broad goals of this website. The purpose of this website is to provide a discussion forum for Democrats and other individuals from the political left. We are building an online movement to effect progressive change in our country. As a privately run website, we are not obligated to give equal time to all points of view.

Its Democrats, they only say they are for freedom. Haven't they learned that actions speak louder that words?

BTW, what name did you post under Vicchio? I used SandTrout on my post under predictions.

Lexington_Steele

2003-01-12, 01:22 AM

What is so great about Bush? This is not meant as a flame. I am just seem to be missing one side of the story. It seems to me that almost nothing has improved in the last 3 years and quite a bit has gone downhill. The economy is declining, we had Enron and Worldcom with little done to prevent things like that happening in the future, John Ashcroft is attorney general, we were unsucessful in getting Osama, and we are on the brink of war. I am having trouble finding positives.

Somehow, Bush has maintained a good approval rating and I just can't understand why. Obviously these people see something that I don't. Why is it that you think he has been a good president? Maybe you can enlighten me as to why so many people are happy with his performance.

SandTrout

2003-01-12, 01:56 AM

A)The economy has been going to shit sence the summer before the elections were held in 2000 and it takes a while for an economy to rebound. Bush cannot be held resposible for this. maybe if the economy is still crap by the end of his admin, then you can bitch at him for not fixing things.

B)Enron and Worldcom had been fooking around for a while as well, and the recent events have just been the culmination of this. Bush cannot be held responsible for this.

C)Geting Osama was a secondary objective, and the war in Afganistan was amazeingly successful compared to previous invasions of the country/region. We have also been knocking off and captureing terrorist more regularly than we have in the past.

D) The people of the U.S.A. are geting pissed off at terrorist attack on us, and want a more proactive stance against it. They approve going to war with Iraq sense Sudam has proven aggressive and finaces and supplies terrorist factions.

Lexington_Steele

2003-01-12, 02:16 AM

So the positives for Bush are invading Afganistan and trying to invade Iraq (even though he is neglecting north korea). Has he made any domestic strides? Is what he has done with regards to foregin policy the main reason for his high approval rating?

P.S. my problem with the way the government handled enron was that very little was done to prevent something like that happening in the future. I don't blame Bush for it happening but I am dissapointed that he did not make much of an effort at all in seeing that similar things don't happen in the future.

SandTrout

2003-01-12, 02:21 AM

Bush isn't neglecting North Korea, he's just takeing a less millitaristic aproach to it(though this is probably because alot of our military is in the middle-east).

I see your point on the Enron deal, but what could be done to prevent someting like that? Not saying Bush is perfect, but he's doing at least a decent job of it.

Mtx

2003-01-12, 02:27 AM

Originally posted by DarkJaguar
hehehehe :D liberals are going to burn in hell :D

Vice City?

TheSHiFT

2003-01-12, 02:43 AM

Hamma

2003-01-12, 03:17 AM

Politics suck.

Warborn

2003-01-12, 04:39 AM

no oil in north korea

Their fault for violating their agreement with the US. Not that that surprises me, though. North Korea is one hell of a fucked up country. Read some reports by international aid workers who've worked there and you'll read some startling things. Like, for example, North Korea has an enormous population of starving people, despite the fact that they recieve the most food aid of any country in the world. What's the problem? The government hordes most of it for themselves and their military, while others starve.

Revolution

2003-01-12, 05:53 AM

Well I listen to Mike Savage aka The Savage Nation on talk radio. No Wonder he always tellin us Liberals suck!!!

Maybe Rush Limbah is right too!

But thats wrong to get banned for JUST THAT> If THAT is True, I am down with a PLANETSIDE SPAM SQUAD !!!!! Wanna Whack that board out for dissin one of us??? Start a new thread if anyone is interested I have Plenty of time on my hands but would not want to do it alone, need people to laugh about it with!

Navaron

2003-01-12, 06:34 AM

I'm a hardcore conservative republican and I will the you that Michael Savage is bad for conservatives. He's an emotional idiot, who doesn't spout as many facts as he does feelings, you want that - go be a liberal democrat, thats how they fight.

Revolution

2003-01-12, 06:38 AM

I am a hard core Non Political Person, I dont CARE! But a PSU got banned for stating an opinion, Lets get a squad together and attack the board, Spam Squad! For Fun! Thats all.
Besides, Art Bell RULES!!!!!!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH

MrVicchio

2003-01-12, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by Lexington_Steele
What is so great about Bush? This is not meant as a flame. I am just seem to be missing one side of the story. It seems to me that almost nothing has improved in the last 3 years and quite a bit has gone downhill. The economy is declining, we had Enron and Worldcom with little done to prevent things like that happening in the future, John Ashcroft is attorney general, we were unsucessful in getting Osama, and we are on the brink of war. I am having trouble finding positives.

Somehow, Bush has maintained a good approval rating and I just can't understand why. Obviously these people see something that I don't. Why is it that you think he has been a good president? Maybe you can enlighten me as to why so many people are happy with his performance.

1. Bush has only been Pres for 2 years now....

2. The economy was all ready in reccession when Bush was elected.

3. Enron and those other scandles were OCCURING UNDER Clinton, but came to light AFTER bush was elected.. ( How ANY right minded individual could blame that on Bush is beyond me. Were the situation reveresed.. and clinton had Just gotten elected, I would defend him on that... ) Besides.. what do you want them to do???? More laws added to the ones that were ALL READY broken? You cant stop crime, al you can do is try to catch it faster.

4. Whats wrong with John Ashcroft? Atleast he isnt a mindless nub like Janet Reno.

5. Osama bin Laden.... While that is true... this is RL not the movies, and thus the bad guys arent always caught or killed by the end of the first reel....

As for why people like him.... Be honest here, does Bush at least sound Honest to you? Liek an honest man who really wants to do the right thing, loves America and wants to bring a sense of dignity back to the Presidency? Put aside any feelings on his politics and just answer that.

That right there is why a lot of people LIKE Bush, after 8 years of Slick Willy, people want an honest manin the White House. You may not agree with his Iraq policy, or you might no tthink he's too smart(which.. I just dont understand.. he had a better academic record then Al Gore... sigh) But the man REALLY does belive in what he is doing and feels he is doing for the RIGHT reasons. Not for power, of fame, or any of the reasons Clinton did anything.

MrVicchio

2003-01-12, 08:12 AM

GUYS, its thier right to have a web site w/forum like that... That I was banned doesn't really bother me, I have another name and am trying to quietly subvert them from with in... messing with liberal wackos is fun. What bothered me was the Hypocracy of it all.

I was really trying to illistrate a point:

Liberals claim to be for "People that stand for Tolerance and Diversity" Yet they will not engage in debate on what is one of the bigger pro Dem/liberal forums I have run across. If they had a single Pro-Conservative Rant section where their members and Real people could get into debates, then I wouldna say a word.

BTW if ANYONE can find me a similar conservative site, that bans liberals... PM me with it would ya?

Lexington_Steele

2003-01-12, 02:05 PM

For the people that won't read a long post I give you this link: http://www.bushorchimp.com/ :chomp:

Better acedemic record? Rofl. The only A that Bush got in college was from a teacher that has never given a student anything other than an A. Bush was not elected for his intelligence.

Like I said before, what has bush done about the recession? Besides Greenspan, Bush is in the position that is best equipped to do something about the economy.

As far as Enron, are you telling me that there is nothing we could do to try to prevent something like that happeneing again? What do I want them to do? How about something like quarterly audits, or some kind of commision that that keeps an eye on accounting firms. How about we tighten the rules concerning how companies are able to manipulate their reports (like not allowing them to push income or debts back to later reports to manipulate their stock prices). But no, I don't think a republican, especially one coming out of big bussiness, will ever put some kind of check on big bussiness. Bush's stance on Enron was nearly non-existant. The reason for this was that Bush and Cheaney have engaged in similar practices with their companies.

My problem with Ashcroft? How about opposing desegregation in his home state, as Missouri's attorney general. He is a racist, agianst women, and is anti-gay. His USA Patriot act is one of my favorites. Who needs fredom anyways. :drools:

So people approve of Bush's performance because of his foreign policy, and his good ol' boy demeanor.

Sputty

2003-01-12, 04:37 PM

Love how that sire mde fun of Cretien too. Whether or not he knows that's the person beside him. BTW, Bush has strained relations with almost every close country that U.S. had in the world. Although Blair is for war and following the states polls show that the population is against war. Bush has pissed off about every Canadian I know. Too bad....Clinton did the opposite.

MrVicchio

2003-01-12, 04:55 PM

Lex, The government needs to STAY out of the way of business. Yeah, crap like Enron happened. And guess what? Lots of people lost LOTS of money. That right there is going to prevent a good portion of anymore shenigans with accounting, because business people are out to make money. The Gov't cannot do that.

As for dealing with the economy.. Bush is. First he pushed as much of a Tax cut as he could through. Now, with a btter Congress, he can REALLY help the economy. Ending the double taxation of Dividends is going to be a great spark to set things aright.

So what? Bush wasn't a STriaght A student.. tell me, what school did Bush fail out of?? Oh yeah, he didn't.. Algore.. ahh yeah, he did... damn.

Sputty, Bush hasn't pissed off most of the world. Most of the world is suffering from penis envy, and can't stand the fact that America still is a Super power whilst their piddly little country couldn't muster enough force, Militarily or economically, to force anyone to do anything.

Sputty

2003-01-12, 04:59 PM

Heh, you're playing into a stereotype that Americans shouldn't be proud of. And BTW, europe is becoming the new super power while the U.S is sticking to themselves Europe is starting to become one country. And yes, the world has become angry at Bush for doing the things he's done. I can think of so many ways he's pissed off people. Environmentally, Economically(he hasn't tried to stop the worsening economy yet has put up a useless tax break to the richest) and more countries than ever think of U.S. as a conquering force. These new conflicts Bush is trying to force on the rest of the world are the first time since Vietnam Canada hasn't backed up the U.S. so it's become that bad that you're closest ally isn't agreeing with you any more.

Revolution

2003-01-12, 05:11 PM

GO RAIDERS! nm listening to the game on Live Radio Via internet.

Anyways, acording(not to my english teacher I always was bad) to some so called prophets the UN will turn on the US which is pretty much the whole world against the USA.

We are bad, but we may be BAD as well. We are on the eve of desctruction I just hope I can play Planetside for a while before it all hits the fan! Otherwise its all gonna bug me!

Sputty

2003-01-12, 05:16 PM

Yep, my death ray hasn't gone off for that reason.

MrVicchio

2003-01-12, 05:23 PM

Tax break for the rich... Do you realize that 50% of all wage earners in america.. DONT PAY TAXES??? Who do you think invests money that helps create jobs?? The POOR?? WHo do you think pays 70% of all taxes in this country? the top20% of Wage earners... Don't bark that one at me kid, cause that is a blatent, BS lie. Tax cut for the rich.. no shit, cause the rich pay most of the taxes.. I sear some ppl dont got a clue.

Revolution

2003-01-12, 05:29 PM

You are talking politics which I dont understand and I am screaming at my Live Feed of the Raiders/Jets game BLOODY MURDER!!!!!!!!!!

Isnt that ironic?

Sputty

2003-01-12, 05:32 PM

The rich don't need the tax cut though. They may pay more taxes but they still have alot of money left over after paying taxes.

Hamma

2003-01-12, 05:56 PM

sigh, you guys would live much longer lives if you ignored politics

Sputty

2003-01-12, 06:00 PM

I don't vote if that'll help.

MrVicchio

2003-01-12, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by Hamma
sigh, you guys would live much longer lives if you ignored politics

Just as long as I live to the launch of PS..... :P

MrVicchio

2003-01-12, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by Sputty
I don't vote if that'll help.

Not if you live in America, everyone SHOULD vote.. its like, the one non-enforced responsiblity we should take seriously. America is one of the only countries in the world oyu can freely vote in, we all should vote.

Lexington_Steele

2003-01-12, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by MrVicchio
Lex, The government needs to STAY out of the way of business. Yeah, crap like Enron happened. And guess what? Lots of people lost LOTS of money. That right there is going to prevent a good portion of anymore shenigans with accounting, because business people are out to make money. The Gov't cannot do that.

I hope you don't really believe that. Bussiness has shown us time and time again that they are unable to regulate themselves.

Bussiness requires regulation. The question is how much.

Pure capitalism does not work just as pure socialism does not work. You need a good balance of freedom for bussiness and regulation of bussiness.

Legislation that makes it so that corperate fat cats can not rape their employees and investors is OK by me.

Bush is always good for a laugh tho. I saw a 365 day callender where every day had a new word that bush had made up or misused.

Sputty

2003-01-12, 06:10 PM

Heh, I'm in Canada where "apathy" rules. I really don't care. It's not like whoever I vote for will ever help me in any way. Everything's for Seniors of the Boomers.

Lexington_Steele

2003-01-12, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by MrVicchio
WHo do you think pays 70% of all taxes in this country? the top20% of Wage earners... Don't bark that one at me kid, cause that is a blatent, BS lie. Tax cut for the rich.. no shit, cause the rich pay most of the taxes.. I sear some ppl dont got a clue.

Who do you think makes 70% of the money?

btw, giving tax cuts to the rich has nothing to do with who is cheating on their taxes, who is able to pay taxes, or what is fair. It is an attempt at stimulating the economy through trickle down economics.

Sputty

2003-01-12, 06:15 PM

Heh, stimulating the economy by destroying the surplus even though there is now way of boosting it really becasue it's a post boom recession.

SandTrout

2003-01-12, 10:30 PM

I hope you don't really believe that. Bussiness has shown us time and time again that they are unable to regulate themselves.

Bussiness requires regulation. The question is how much.

Pure capitalism does not work just as pure socialism does not work. You need a good balance of freedom for bussiness and regulation of bussiness.

Yes, the current legistation makes it illeagal to commit fraud as the Enron/Worldcom execs did. Lets make a law that makes brakeing a law illeagle?

Do you see the redundancy? We have crap like this covered by law, and more laws wont help.

More legislation is not the answer to the problem of those companies. They knew they were breaking the law, and breaking another law wouldn't make much of a difference to them.

Also, can you count the times that a govornment has broken the law to get its own way? Clinton comited purgery, the whole Water-gate scandle, and thats just the US. Look at China, the USSR, Impirialist Britain, and any number of other countries that had more restrictive laws, and there were still things geting f00ked up.

Who do you think makes 70% of the money?

Not the top 20% of the population if they only pay 70% of the taxes. If you are in the top 20% of wage earners, you pay a huge amount of your income in income tax. The less you make, the less you get taxed.

Simple math and logic proves that if the top 20% pays 70% of the taxes, then they make a lot less that 70% of the money.

Lexington_Steele

2003-01-12, 11:01 PM

Originally posted by SandTrout
Yes, the current legistation makes it illeagal to commit fraud as the Enron/Worldcom execs did. Lets make a law that makes brakeing a law illeagle?

Do you see the redundancy? We have crap like this covered by law, and more laws wont help.

Actually it most of it was not illegal. There are legal ways for bussinesses to defer some of their debts or profits to a later quarter. In this way they are able to manipulate their stock prices and misrepresent their companies value. This is a very common practice and happens on a reguloar basis. Bush's company did it. Cheaney's company did it. How many Enron related arrests have there been? I can't think of more than 2.

What it means is that the executives gain an inherent insider trading ability and the average joe investor is left investing based on a lie.

If you feel the laws that are in place are fine, then what we need is a better way to police those laws. Start a government organization whose sole purpose is to police those laws.

Don't tell me there is nothing we can do about preventing something like this in the future. If we have a problem we can find a solution.

Navaron

2003-01-12, 11:06 PM

Bullshit, this is what I'm talking about getting facts.

Income Tax: Who Pays? IRS Figures for 2000

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/irsfigures.guest.html

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/top_50__of_wage_earners_pay_96_09__of_income_taxes .guest.html

Hamma

2003-01-12, 11:11 PM

:ugh:

SandTrout

2003-01-12, 11:27 PM

Second link is busted.

Sputty

2003-01-12, 11:28 PM

Too many numbers. My brain hurts. Thanks alot!

Navaron

2003-01-12, 11:31 PM

It's ok, the top one is the most important one.

Mtx

2003-01-12, 11:44 PM

That new meatlovers pizza at Pizza Hut is okay.

Sputty

2003-01-12, 11:46 PM

That pizza is old...They've had meatlovers for as long as I can remember

Lexington_Steele

2003-01-12, 11:46 PM

What were you trying to say there? It was saying that top 50% of the income bracket paid 96% of the taxes and that the top 1% paid 37%.

I am not sure what you were trying to say. Are you saying it is not fair that people that make bucketloads of money have to pay more taxes than those who can barely afford to survive?

mistled

2003-01-12, 11:57 PM

Originally posted by Lexington_Steele
What were you trying to say there? It was saying that top 50% of the income bracket paid 96% of the taxes and that the top 1% paid 37%.

I am not sure what you were trying to say. Are you saying it is not fair that people that make bucketloads of money have to pay more taxes than those who can barely afford to survive?

Sorry nav, I've got to get in this pointless mess.

He's obviously pointing out that since the top 50% pay 96% of the taxes, then they are the one's who need the break. Nav was simply giving you the figures to back up MrVic's point.

Here's where liberals screw this up. The rich are always going to pay more in taxes, dollar wise. They should. They do. It's that simple. The problem is that currently if I only make a little bit of money, the government takes 15% (or less depending) of it, but if I make a lot of money, the government takes 42% of it. 15% from the rich would still be more than 15% from the poor, and that would be fair to everyone. What's so hard to get about that?

mistled

mistled

2003-01-13, 12:00 AM

Originally posted by Sputty
Heh, stimulating the economy by destroying the surplus even though there is now way of boosting it really becasue it's a post boom recession.

There's no such this as a surplus when you are talking about the federal government. It's not like they spent what they were given wisely and now have extra money to play with.

It's that they stole too much money and got caught with it before they could spend it. A 'surplus' is simply where Americans were overtaxed.

mistled

2003-01-13, 12:08 AM

Originally posted by Lexington_Steele
Like I said before, what has bush done about the recession? Besides Greenspan, Bush is in the position that is best equipped to do something about the economy.

No. The American people and business owners are best equipped to do something about the economy. All they need is for the government to stop taking their money and get the hell out of the way.

As far as Enron, are you telling me that there is nothing we could do to try to prevent something like that happeneing again? What do I want them to do? How about something like quarterly audits, or some kind of commision that that keeps an eye on accounting firms. How about we tighten the rules concerning how companies are able to manipulate their reports (like not allowing them to push income or debts back to later reports to manipulate their stock prices). But no, I don't think a republican, especially one coming out of big bussiness, will ever put some kind of check on big bussiness. Bush's stance on Enron was nearly non-existant. The reason for this was that Bush and Cheaney have engaged in similar practices with their companies.

His USA Patriot act is one of my favorites. Who needs fredom anyways.

Did everyone just miss the hypocracy in these statements?? You say that we could regulate everything in business and then have the balls to talk about freedom??

Bush didn't need a stance on Enron. They broke the law. Why would Bush need to come out and say that's a bad thing?? No shit he thinks it's a bad thing. That's like asking why Bush hasn't come out and condemned the murderer they caught here last week. It's just too obvious to mention. This kind of thing isn't even asked unless the person is on a witchhunt.

mistled

Lexington_Steele

2003-01-13, 12:09 AM

15% income taxes from everyone is not enough to support our government. (it is not their wages where they are getting heavily taxed, it is their capital gains)

So what are you going to do, raise taxes for everyone so that even more people are below the poverty line? Or are you going to take the money from those who can afford to pay it. (I would miss $10,000 alot more than bill gates would miss $1 billion).

Again, giving a tax break to the rich has nothing to do with what is fair. It is meant to stimulate the economy by allowing bussinesses to expand and create jobs. These benefits are supposed to trickle down to the middle and lower classes.

A tax cut for the rich has absolutely nothing to do with the rich being unfairly over-taxed.

mistled

2003-01-13, 12:15 AM

If the federal government would stick to doing its duties as clearly and very specificially stated in the United States Constitution, 15% from everyone would be more than adequate to run on.

I personally find all the class envy among democrats amusing. It's amazing how democrats can have so much animosity towards the rich when all of the democratic leaders are very rich individuals.

By the way, you do realize that a couple that each makes $50,000 a year is among the rich and upper class, don't you? I find it interesting that we always mention Bill Gates when we should be mentioning the lead programmer where we work.

Lexington_Steele

2003-01-13, 12:25 AM

Originally posted by {BOHICA}mistled
No. The American people and business owners are best equipped to do something about the economy. All they need is for the government to stop taking their money and get the hell out of the way.

Did everyone just miss the hypocracy in these statements?? You say that we could regulate everything in business and then have the balls to talk about freedom??

Bush didn't need a stance on Enron. They broke the law. Why would Bush need to come out and say that's a bad thing?? No shit he thinks it's a bad thing. That's like asking why Bush hasn't come out and condemned the murderer they caught here last week. It's just too obvious to mention. This kind of thing isn't even asked unless the person is on a witchhunt.

mistled

On the first point I disagree. I believe their needs to be a balance between regulation and freedom for bussinesses. Without regulation we would see things like monopolies. Do you really believe that pure capitalism works?

Do you want your power company to be able to charge you whatever they want because they know you need electricity. How about $1000 a month electric bills. What prevents this from happening? It is regulation of bussiness.

What is preventing microsoft from taking over the world? ;) government regulation.

As far as John Ashcroft and human rights are concerned I think there needs to be a balance there too and the US patriot act went too far. I believe that the government should not be able to hold me indefinately with no charges. I am against military tribunal trials. I think my rights were just fine before 9/11 and it was the FBI and the CIA dropped the ball.

9/11 did not happen because I have the right to a speedy trial.

I noticed you did not comment on Ashcrofts racist tendancies.

With Enron, you say they broke the law, but where are all the arrests and penalties?? I count two arrests. I could be missing some, but it doesn't seem like very many people got punished. I see that somehow our system allowed an Enron to occur. I also see that Bush made no effort to prevent an enron from happenenig in the future.

mistled

2003-01-13, 12:44 AM

I don't have a problem with some business regulation. I do have a problem with the idea that we should just keep adding new regulations every time someone breaks an old one. We aren't enforcing the ones we have, why create new ones to not enforce?

What prevents $1000/mon electric bills is that people couldn't pay it and as such, the demand is not there. It doesn't matter that everyoen needs electricity if no one can afford to buy it. The electric company knows this.

As far as monopolies go, look back at the break up of AT&T in the southeast. After they 'fixed' that monopoly, the prices of everything went up and the service got worse. Some fix.

Look at Microsoft since you brought them up. Windows is a monopoly. Linux is free and still can't compete to the average consumer. Everyone runs a Windows OS of somesort (and here come all the people who don't to post). Most of the computers in the world run Windows. And MS doesn't charge $1000 a pop for it. They could. People would still buy it (It'd just be bundled into the cost of the computer they buy). The proliferation of it wouldn't be nearly as great though, and they know that. Regulation hasn't stopped Microsoft because they simply have a better product than anyone else for the average user. (the same can be said for AOL, even if I do despise them).

I agree with you about the Patriot Act. It's a load of crap from what I can remember of it.

I didn't comment on Ashcroft's racist tendancies because I don't know anything about them. :)

You asked where the arrests were in the Enron case. That's my entire point. We don't need more regulations. We need to arrest people for breaking the laws that we have. Again, Bush shouldn't have to do anything else. Our law enforcement should be enforcing the current law.

mistled

MrVicchio

2003-01-13, 12:51 AM

Look,

REAL Simple, and This one is directed at that idiotic comment about trickle down economics. Where do you think the Boom of the 90's came from? Hmm.. It has been nailed down as starting with RONALD REAGANS SUPPLY SIDE TAX CUTS! WOOT! Amazing thing that, economics....

Sputty

2003-01-13, 12:57 AM

Wow, here's an oxymoron http://www.cia.gov/cia/information/bush.html
:D
I know it's named after Sr. but it's still funny when you first read see the title.

Lexington_Steele

2003-01-13, 01:17 AM

Originally posted by MrVicchio
Look,

REAL Simple, and This one is directed at that idiotic comment about trickle down economics. Where do you think the Boom of the 90's came from? Hmm.. It has been nailed down as starting with RONALD REAGANS SUPPLY SIDE TAX CUTS! WOOT! Amazing thing that, economics....

I don't see Reagan as the one who fixed the economy. If you remeber we were in a recession throughout Bush sr.'s presidency.

The only good thing that Reagan did was the way he dealt with the Soviet Union.

MrVicchio

2003-01-13, 06:17 AM

Liquid Lex...

If you are going to be a hata' atleast have your facts right....

We were NOT in a recession throught Bush Sr. term, there was a dip in the economy during the last 18 months of his precidency, WHICH by the way was all ready on its way to recovery when Slick Willy came on to the scene. Go, sersiouly, GO LOOK THIS UP MAN. Go find three, four web sites that break it down, you will see if you look around, that most independant, non-partisan economist say, Reagan's "voodoo economics" are in fact, the genisis of the 90's boom.

Zanzibar

2003-01-13, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by Sputty
BTW, Bush has strained relations with almost every close country that U.S. had in the world. Although Blair is for war and following the states polls show that the population is against war.

lol you have no idea the bad p[ress bush gets over in england. not necesserily because of wot hes done in america (we generally dnt give a toss) but for bein bum chums with blair (our prime minister) oh and choking on a pretzil... :rofl: yeh i really hate blair for doin all this stuff with bush.
yeah and wot makes it worse is that loads of the troops invading afghanistan british. the royal marines led it, bush used british special forces for operations INSTEAD of using delta force for ex.
hes a knob. end of story. lol

Originally posted by MrVicchio

Wow, here's an oxymoron http://www.cia.gov/cia/information/bush.html

I know it's named after Sr. but it's still funny when you first read see the title.

[/B]
hahahaha PRETZEL MAAAAAN!

Zanzibar

2003-01-13, 08:22 AM

WE NEED ANOTHER CHURCHILL AND ROOSEVELT!!!

Navaron

2003-01-13, 08:48 AM

The last thing America needs is another Roosevelt.

"british. the royal marines led it, bush used british special forces for operations INSTEAD of using delta force for ex.
hes a knob" - Wow, America is a lot more powerful than I thought. Shit, we can order around *other* peoples SF's. Cool.

You're a moron. I don't even know where to start with you. I'm not gonna, just go make up some more facts, bash someone who you obviously know nothing about - and then go back to your "independant thoughts".

mistled

2003-01-13, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by Zanzibar
troops invading afghanistan british.

:huh: :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh: wtf is 'afghanistan british'??

So basically you are saying that you don't like Bush because you dislike your own leadership. That makes a lot of sense. Crazy Brit.

- That is the shit that Bush can order around European Special Forces. I like him even more now. ;)

Sputty

2003-01-13, 04:28 PM

Britain probably requested to have their special forces be a leader in the attack. Canada's special forces were used also. They're called JTF 2. Weird name and no one relly nkwos anthing about them. a bit of CDN history BTW. The use of JTF2 and the fact that they gave prisoners immediately to the U.S. without telling the PM led to our minister of defense being fired..heh..

mistled

2003-01-13, 04:52 PM

**Removed** Got my people I was replying to screwed up.oops:

Sputty

2003-01-13, 04:53 PM

I didn't sy anything earlier about Bush using British SF, that was Zanzibar

mistled

2003-01-13, 04:59 PM

Sorry Sputty, trolling through too quickly I guess. oops:

Sputty

2003-01-13, 05:01 PM

No problem. I as just saying realistically Blair would want to get more votes(I don't thinkn it's working, alot ofmpeople hate Blair) by saying his SF were a major part of teh attack. SO he most likely asked. Canada "offered" to send in thier military too. U.S. used it because it looks better to have multiple countries rather than the U.S. attacking it alone.

mistled

2003-01-13, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by Sputty
No problem. I as just saying realistically Blair would want to get more votes(I don't thinkn it's working, alot ofmpeople hate Blair) by saying his SF were a major part of teh attack. SO he most likely asked. Canada "offered" to send in thier military too. U.S. used it because it looks better to have multiple countries rather than the U.S. attacking it alone.
.. And Americas are whiners when it comes to send their boys to war.