AAAAGGGHHHH!! YOU SAY YOU WANT A REVOLUTION, WELL, YOU KNOW, WE ALL WANT TO CHANGE THE WORLD. YOU TELL ME THAT IT'S EVOLUTION, WELL, YOU KNOW, WE ALL WANT TO CHANGE THE WORLD. BUT WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT DESTRUCTION, DON'T YOU KNOW THAT YOU CAN COUNT ME OUT? DON'T YOU KNOW IT'S GONNA BE ALRIGHT, ALRIGHT, ALRIGHT. (ALRIGHT) YOU SAY YOU GOT A REAL SOLUTION, WELL, YOU KNOW, WE'D ALL LOVE TO SEE THE PLAN. YOU ASK ME FOR A CONTRIBUTION, WELL, YOU KNOW, WE'RE ALL DOING WHAT WE CAN. BUT IF YOU WANT MONEY FOR PEOPLE WITH MINDS THAT HATE, ALL I CAN TELL YOU IS, "BROTHER, YOU HAVE TO WAIT." DON'T YOU KNOW IT'S GONNA BE ALRIGHT, ALRIGHT, ALRIGHT. AH - AH-AH-AH-AH-AH-AH-AH-AH-AH-AH-AH-AH-AH YOU SAY YOU'LL CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION, WELL, YOU KNOW, WE ALL WANT TO CHANGE YOUR HEAD. YOU TELL ME IT'S THE INSTITUTION, WELL, YOU KNOW, YOU BETTER FREE YOUR MIND INSTEAD. BUT IF YOU GO CARRYING PICTURES OF CHAIRMAN MAO, YOU AIN'T GONNA MAKE IT WITH ANYONE ANYHOW. DON'T YOU KNOW IT'S GONNA BE ALRIGHT, ALRIGHT, ALRIGHT. ALRIGHT, ALRIGHT, ALRIGHT, ALRIGHT, ALRIGHT, ALRIGHT, ALRIGHT, ALRIGHT.
You remember what they taught you in Psychology 101? All I rember from my Psych 101 class is that people who resort to profanity immediately upon discussing liberals have very diminutive and conservative republican penises.
Actually, for a midget she is quite fetching....and from her perspective, things are almost always looking up.
what gets me are a lot of these protestors are the same groups that for years cried about the persecution and human rights violations under hussein, a legitimate concern. but now that we are going to do something they are crying about a war. do they think asking nicely is going to work? fact is these tyrants only understand one language: BRUTE FORCE! Norht Korea and that psycho Kim is next!
One major difference about a right wing shoot first and ask questions second approach to Kim, is that Kim is a puppet for the communist Chinese (and a very well armed puppet he is with a border to an important ally who is not able to defend themselves just waiting to be taken)----with their full support behind him, and Hussein is really just a simple dictator without a country behind him.
Gotta love this old post. Gotta especially love old Rush Limbaugh. The more conservative they are, the harder they "blow". http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=107970&highlight=rush+limbaugh#post107970 World War II ---------Franklin Roosevelt. (does that count?) Peace, whenever possible (which it isn't always). rs7 (Proud "Lib") ) Or maybe it's really all relative. I am sure I would be considered a reactionary in certain circles. P.S. Why is it that (in the US) conservatives consider themselves "staunch republicans" and democrats "liberal assholes"? Is it possible to be a "staunch democrat"?
Aphieboy! Imitation is the best form of flattery. In your case NOT.!!!!!:eek: You wanna put up a fight? stick to your frigging guns and side. what the frigging f^%k? Who gave you permission to become a political slut????? way too young for that, stick with gordy for now. Hmmm Vinnie winnie the Longshit pulled the disappearing act for now.....but many more taking his rightfullplace, Ohh well Baron will need a new drive just for all the bs aliases hello daniela_Max OPTIONAL777 ole buddy, looking for a smart Conservative???? ok, ok, ok, got a deal for ya The rest of the a$$hole warmongers, babykillers, blood for gasoline murderers pay attention READ THIS: Questions that Won't Be Asked About Iraq FROM Rep. senator Ron Paul (R-TX) 1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate? 2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate â which just confirms that there is no real threat? 3. Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections? 4. Is it not true that the UNâs International Atomic Energy Agency was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with Iraqi cooperation? 5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq? 6. Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when he recently said there is no confirmed evidence of Iraqâs links to terrorism? 7. Is it not true that the CIA has concluded there is no evidence that a Prague meeting between 9/11 hijacker Atta and Iraqi intelligence took place? 8. Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the administration claimed al-Qaeda were hiding out, is in the control of our "allies," the Kurds? 9. Is it not true that the vast majority of al-Qaeda leaders who escaped appear to have safely made their way to Pakistan, another of our so-called allies? 10. Has anyone noticed that Afghanistan is rapidly sinking into total chaos, with bombings and assassinations becoming daily occurrences; and that according to a recent UN report al-Qaeda "is, by all accounts, alive and well and poised to strike again, how, when, and where it chooses"? 11. Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those who did attack the United States â and who may again attack the United States â and using them to invade countries that have not attacked the United States? 12. Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab world's worst suspicions about the US â and isn't this what bin Laden wanted? 13. How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an army 1/5 the size of twelve years ago, which even then proved totally inept at defending the country? 14. Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is exclusively that of the Congress? Should presidents, contrary to the Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public opinion? Are presidents permitted to rely on the UN for permission to go to war? 15. Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges that thousands of Kurds in one village were gassed by the Iraqis, which found no conclusive evidence that Iraq was responsible, that Iran occupied the very city involved, and that evidence indicated the type of gas used was more likely controlled by Iran not Iraq? 16. Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 US soldiers have suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and that thousands may have died? 17. Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a war against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United States? 18. Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 100 billion dollar war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to "build democracy" there? 19. Iraqâs alleged violations of UN resolutions are given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of UN Resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty? 20. Did former President Bush not cite the UN Resolution of 1990 as the reason he could not march into Baghdad, while supporters of a new attack assert that it is the very reason we can march into Baghdad? 21. Is it not true that, contrary to current claims, the no-fly zones were set up by Britain and the United States without specific approval from the United Nations? 22. If we claim membership in the international community and conform to its rules only when it pleases us, does this not serve to undermine our position, directing animosity toward us by both friend and foe? 23. How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle East and support military tyrants like Musharraf in Pakistan, who overthrew a democratically-elected president? 24. Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the U.S. knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and as late as 1992 â including after the alleged Iraqi gas attack on a Kurdish village? 25. Did we not assist Saddam Husseinâs rise to power by supporting and encouraging his invasion of Iran? Is it honest to criticize Saddam now for his invasion of Iran, which at the time we actively supported? 26. Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate US policy? 27. Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq? 28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they wonât have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals? 29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted? 30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense? 31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change? 32. Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely disagreements will be settled by war? 33. Is it not true that since World War II Congress has not declared war and â not coincidentally â we have not since then had a clear-cut victory? 34. Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban? 35. Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress? Ron Paul, M.D., represents the 14th Congressional District of Texas in the United States House of Representatives. http://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul45.html What are you doing to my country??? YOU are the destroyers, parasites, of what it used to stand for
My Dear trader556, All that you posted would be valid, but for the simple reason that you do not understand America, and Americans. We do not care one way or the other about any of the things you posted. We need ans want a media event, an entertainment vehicle to help us pass the time between pay-per-view professional wrestling extravaganzas, and Super Bowls. Americans love a staged fight...one where the "Good Guy" wins...and we have had so few of late. So what if hundreds of thousands die and suffer. So what if a nation is destroyed. So what if it brings about decades of unrest in the world. It will be fun to view on television - especially since virtually no "true supporter" will have to actually take part in it. Your post, while provocative, was a waste of time. because it dealt with reality - something most Americans avoid at all costs.
I concur!!!! I know that Daniel_M said he was just trying to be funny when he said kicking back with a beer and watching the US kick ass on tv would be great entertainment. And while I disagree with Dan's politics (for the most part), and his "bedside manner" when dealing with those he disagrees with, I DO accept that he was not being serious with those remarks. But the problem is, his remarks were, in actuality, pretty much on the money. Taken at face value, whatever his own meaning was, the reality is, that is how it is. There is a plethora of "Archie Bunkers" populating our country. And to them, this apparently impending war really WILL be great entertainment. Tampa wrote.."especially since virtually no 'true supporter' will have to actually take part in it". This is so true as to be a topic of probably hundreds of "protest" songs from the Vietnam era. Daniel, in response. said the he "abso-freakin-lutely!" would fight as a real participant. He then goes on to say: "as a matter of fact, not choosing to pursue a military career earlier in my life is one of biggest regrets. however, i have recently applied to enter the australian army reserve as an officer. i should know in a couple of months if i was successful. " Well, I for one admire his efforts. I hope he gets what he wants. And I actually believe that Dan has what it takes to be an asset to our forces. He is obviously very bright and very diligent in his efforts, whatever they may be. And adding a little military discipline to his life (along with the respect that is ingrained into members of the armed forces) can only serve to make him a better man. And I for one believe he has tremendous potential. A little bit of direction will do wonders for him. So I wish him nothing but the very best of luck and success in his endeavor, if he chooses to go that way. Or if they choose him (as the case may be). We (NATO) can always use another bright officer in our ranks of military leaders. Which brings me to my very roundabout point. Trader 556 showed an example of a "smart conservative". By posting the objections of Ron Paul (R. Texas) as proof such an animal exists. Now while I am sure that Trader556 and Optional777 were both attempting to be somewhat tongue in cheek about their views and their responses, it is, and always has been rather striking to me that indeed, for whatever incomprehensible (to me) reasons, the following seems to hold true: As I said in a post just yesterday, conservatives virtually always seem to refer to liberals as "liberal assholes". Why? Why are conservatives so angry? I know that Trader556 was making a statement in his post implying that there IS such a thing as an intelligent conservative. But as a liberal, I readily acknowledge that there are many brilliant and even right thinking conservatives. But there is something about their "anger" that I will never understand. Maybe this anger, or lack of it is really what separates "liberals" from "conservatives". Certainly this is not a Republican/Democrat issue. That is just politics. I am talking about deeper feelings than who one registers with to vote in primary elections. I have voted for Republican candidates (on seldom occasions....to me it is the candidate and the issues, NOT the party). Could it be that "liberals" have an attitude that permits them to occasionally accept, or at least consider opposing viewpoints? That would, in a literal sense at least, define the word "liberal". "Conservatives", in a literal sense, are defined as those who wish to "conserve" the status quo. But we all know it isn't that simple. So what is it really that defines the difference? I say it is anger. I don't know what causes the anger. I don't know if there is a universal "cause". But to me, it seems a very real attitude. Listen to Rush Limbaugh. Remember Newt Gingrich? How about Ollie North? Why are these guys so angry? Why do they choose to use profanity (when they can get away with it)? Nixon? How many "expletive deleted"s were there on the Watergate tapes? Then on the opposite side of the fence, you get an extreme leftist like Phil Donohue, or better yet Randi Rhodes (for those lucky enough to be within her limited radio range here in Florida), you get humor and a pleasant demeanor in place of anger and rage. How funny was Abbie Hoffman? Jerry Rubin? No matter what you thought of their politics, they did provide humor. (and great sadness too). But they were human. David Duke? Clarence Thomas? Spiro Agnew? Nixon? Who would want to have a beer and a few laughs with these guys? How come there are so many Clinton Haters? The guy lied about sex! Most likely the first true American to be guilty of such a heinous breach of our values. Newt had to be sued by his wife for child support, but he extolled "family values" with an angry attitude. The whole thing has me truly befuddled. So while I can't get quite so upset with Aphie as Trader556 did for Aphie's opening comments on this thread, nor can I get upset with Dan for his consistently aggressive responses to those with whom he disagrees, I can't help but notice a common thread of anger. As for Optional and Trader556's contention that (distilled down to simplest terms) "conservatives" are not as "intelligent" as "liberals".....well, I find myself disagreeing with the premise completely. I see WHY they can make a "case" for such claims. But, I can safely assume that they are not really serious. I know that they understand that the whole concept is ludicrous. Certainly there are brilliant conservatives and brilliant liberals. And morons on both sides as well. But on balance, I have to believe that the "conservatives" have the market cornered in the "anger" department. For those of us old enough to remember what went on during the Vietnam War protests.....the "hardhats" hated the "pinko demonstrators" I mean they truly HATE them. And they loved NIXON. And the funny thing was, Nixon was their real enemy. The Nixon (the whole Republican) administration had absolutely no common interests with those laborers. Or their unions. But they had been conned by believing the whole "America, Love It or Leave It "Silent Majority" load of bullshit. What divisiveness. Tricky Dick! Now, if someone could explain WHY to me....... I had made a promise to a friend that I would vote for Dubya in the last election. Don't even remember why. Some ridiculous bet or something. I kept my promise. But I found a loophole. I live in Florida, and knew my vote mattered. I could NOT vote for Dubya. But I made a promise. So what I did was I had my brother, who was going to vote for Gore in Colorado vote for Bush to fulfill my obligation to get a vote for Bush he would not have gotten. And a vote for Gore or Bush in Colorado was not going to make the slightest impact. The anger over this maneuver ruined my friendship. To this day I cannot understand. I mean I got Bush an extra vote. He won the election. I did not do what my conscience would not allow me to do (and I went into the polling place with he honest intention of fulfilling my promise then and there, but I just couldn't pull the trigger when the time came). So I knew I had a 2 hour time difference in which to implement my plan. But it cost me a friendship I valued greatly. I lost a friend I truly liked. And all over HIS (not my) political anger. WHY????? What makes conservatives so damn ANGRY???? Peace, Rs7