24hourcampfire.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
Support #141739 02/24/03
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,518
HogWild Offline OP
Campfire Ranger
OP Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,518
Here's wishing the best for our military in the upcoming conflict!

HogWild


HogWild
BP-B2

Re: Support #141740 02/24/03
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 17,244
Barak Offline
Campfire Kahuna
Offline
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 17,244
Quote
Here's wishing the best for our military in the upcoming conflict!

Amen to that--even from those of us who are strenuously opposed to Baby Bush's war on Iraq in particular and to American imperialism in general.

We're praying that you will stay safe and that you will soon be able to return to your families unharmed--both you folks in and on the way to the Mideast and all the rest of you in other dark, forgotten corners of the world where you have been tasked with imposing the will of America's politicians on the local people.

Be careful and come home soon in one piece!

Last edited by Barak; 02/25/03.

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain--that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." --Lysander Spooner, 1867
Re: Support #141741 02/24/03
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,833
AFP Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,833
Barak,

While I fully support you and will fight for you to believe what you want, I respectfully disagree with your assessment of GW Bush and America in the strongest possible terms.

If Baby Bush didn't have 150,000 troops in the Gulf with fingers on their triggers, Saddam wouldn't even be thinking about disarming. If the politicans in our country and the rest of the world would unite behind Baby Bush, there would be no need for continuing the hostilities (they have never ended) we have engaged in with Iraq since 1991. A united world--even a united US--would force Saddam to go into exile and would allow a peaceful regime change and for the first time in a long time, the Iraqi's could live free from tyranny and oppression. On top of that, we take out one huge terrorist threat. However, the buffoonery liberal politicans and the leaders of France and Germany are engaging in only worsen the situation.

No, I don't want to go back to the armpit of the world again, but I want a world safe for my children, and such a world needs to be free of terrorists and the dictators who support them. After Iraq, then we have work to do in North Korea, Iran, Syria, etc. Terrorist and the countries that support them must understand in no uncertain terms terrorism is not acceptable and the punishments for engaging is such activities is severe.

The US is not imperialist. We want is peaceful relations with our neighbors and mutually beneficial trade. We do not desire the whole world to be under US rule, as we would if we were truly imperialist. Calling the US "imperialist" is like saying Bush is a Hitler and Saddam is a victim. While we are not perfect, we have more tolerance for those who hate us, are exceedingly generous, and do our best to improve the lot of the rest of the world. No one else even comes close.

The only way we have ever secured a peace is through strength and engagement in the world. As much as I'd like us to be isolationist, that is not a viable option in the 21st century.

Off my soapbox now.

Blaine

Re: Support #141742 02/25/03
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,123
7400Hunter Offline
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,123
Barak,

You have a right to free speach, as long as it dosen't infringe on another persons rights. The way you got these rights is exactly what you are speaking out againist now! Mr. Bush is sending these Men and Women to Iraq to protect these rights of yours. The people of the U.S. have been doing this since leaving England and other country's, and we must say they have done a good job of it too, since you're sitting on a computer excerising your rights now!
You claim this is an act of imperialism, You are wrong on this or you don't know what you are talking about. We are not going over there to take over the country of Iraq and install our goverment. We only want to take out Sadistic leaders who preys on others rights. They will be preying on yours if not taken care of now, and if we wait until you anti-war people decide to have a change of heart it will be either to late or we will have a lot more soldiers killed doing this. Imperialism, is exactly what Iraq had in mind when they took over Kuwait in the early 90's, we went over there then and run them out to prevent this and will be taking the steps now to prevent it from happening again.
How would you like it if, you made the statement you just made and your country's leader sent soldiers out to have you killed or tortured becuase he didn't like it? What if we let this person or person's go and you have to live in fear of your life or loved ones lives from being Gas'ed or a nuclear threat? Whould you want to carry a gas mask with you while hunting or fishing? Would you want to stay home 24/7 to make sure the Kids and Wife got to a fallout shelter in the event of a nuclear attack? I'm sure you wouldn't, but if we let something like this go then the possibility grows. I bet if someone made a threat againist you, Kids or Wife you would do something to prevent this threat from happening, right? What if, this thing you do to prevent this threat from being carried out was put down by everyone around you, wouldn't it make you feel bad? Yes it would and by you speaking againist this possible War, you are putting these Men and Women down that are trying to protect your rights.
Try to rethink your opinion on this matter and look at all the possibilties that make it right and wrong. I think you will see the reason Mr. Bush is trying to take care of this matter before it gets any bigger.


Jim Croce: You don't tug on Superman's cape, spit into the wind ...

Re: Support #141743 02/25/03
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 17,244
Barak Offline
Campfire Kahuna
Offline
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 17,244
It's okay. Lots of people disagree with me about Baby Bush. In my less cynical moments, I don't think he means to be a power-mad megalomaniac. He doesn't intend to suck the country and what he can get to of the world dry to support his imperialist ambitions. He's merely convinced that if the rest of the world ran their affairs according to his plans, the world would be a better place; and now that he's got the power to force them to run their affairs that way, it would be silly not to use it.

And yes, I think he is imperialist. No, he doesn't intend to take over the entire world, but he does intend to essentially seize Iraq and its oil resources and colonize it, placing his own military governor in charge. That's pretty freaking imperialist. But it's not just Baby Bush: we've done (or tried to do) the same sort of thing all over the world under other Presidents, except that we call them "peacekeepers" instead of military governors.

I cannot see any credible threat to the US from Iraq, terrorist or otherwise. (Even Iraq's neighbors say Iraq is no threat to them.) As a matter of fact, that seems to be the very reason Bush has chosen Iraq as the setting for his war: it's projected to be a pushover compared with somebody more serious like North Korea. There is no evidence that Iraq was involved with 9/11, and it's very unlikely that Hussein and bin Laden could be in a room together for five minutes without killing each other.

Yes, yes, I know: "You want to try disarming him after he has nuclear weapons?" No, not particularly. Whether he has nuclear weapons is between him and the UN. If the UN is so all-fired convinced that he should be disarmed, then let the UN worry about disarming him. We shouldn't have a dog in that fight. And whatever the danger to us now from Iraq-equipped terrorism, it's nowhere near the danger we'll be in from terrorism sponsored by every oil-rich Muslim country in the Middle East once Iraq is an American colony.

America used to be a country to admire among the nations of the world. In the last couple of decades, however, we've been becoming a police state on the inside and the Evil Empire Jr. on the outside. (Generous? Are you kidding? Are armed robbers generous because they give some of their loot to charity? That's exactly what the US government does.)

But Baby Bush has done so much cowboy posturing now that it's politically impossible for him to back down, even with his public support hemorrhaging away. Watching him continuing to threaten, "This is your last chance!" and "This is your really last chance!" and "This time I really really really mean it, honest!" makes it difficult to avoid the cynical view: Papa Bush had a war, and Slick Willy had a war, and if Baby Bush doesn't get his war too, nobody will talk to him at cocktail parties. As I saw on a .sig the other day, "Yo, George! When even the Germans don't want to fight, get a frickin' clue!"

What he needs to revive his support is another horrific terrorist attack that kills thousands of people but can easily be blamed on Iraq. Stay tuned.

See what I mean about cynical?

No. I'm not a pacifist. I understand that war is sometimes necessary. I even believe that the United States has been involved in a few just wars. But this one is a stupid idea from beginning to end, apparently stemming from the theory that it's okay to give Bush whatever power he wants because he's a conservative and we can trust him not to abuse it. It's not worth a single drop of American blood, including the four guys killed yesterday in Kuwait when their chopper crashed during training. It's not even worth any Iraqi blood. Hussein is already killing plenty of Iraqis every day; he doesn't need any help from us.

Yes, I support our troops. I support bringing them home where they belong and not spending their lives on a stupid arrogant demonstration that the US military is bigger than the Iraqi military.


"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain--that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." --Lysander Spooner, 1867
IC-A

Re: Support #141744 02/25/03
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,833
AFP Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,833
Barak,

If the US really wanted Iraqi oil, we'd just have taken it in 1991. There is a clear and present danger from Saddam. I'm sorry you can't see it, but then again England didn't see the threat from Hitler in the late 30's either. Of course Iraq's neighbors are going to say Saddam isn't a threat--they are afraid of him. After all, he is a thug who has killed milloins of his own people to stay in power.

Bush II alreayd had his war, and he could gain much more politically by not going to war in Iraq. However, he is govenred by principal, which is a rare things today in politics.

Blaine

Re: Support #141745 02/25/03
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,631
need one Offline
Campfire Guide
Offline
Campfire Guide
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,631
Why did we give away the Panama Canal, why did we rebuild Japan, why did we train the Saudi to drill oil wells along with Libbia, Kuwait, and South America. Why are we the first to help any country in emergencies and feed the hungry. Are you an alien or just a Democrat? -- no


A hint to the wise is sufficient! Experience is the best teacher!
Re: Support #141746 02/25/03
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 17,244
Barak Offline
Campfire Kahuna
Offline
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 17,244
Quote
You have a right to free speach, as long as it dosen't infringe on another persons rights. The way you got these rights is exactly what you are speaking out againist now! Mr. Bush is sending these Men and Women to Iraq to protect these rights of yours.

Uh, no.

The way I got those rights, according to our founding fathers, was simply by being born. "We hold these Truths to be self-evident...that [all Men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." Neither Baby Bush nor all his horses nor all his men has given me a single right in his entire life. On the contrary, he and his administration have actively attacked most of the rights the Constitution guarantees me with his USA PATRIOT Act, with his Department of Homeland Security, and now they're prepared to try for even more with "Patriot II."

Conversely, not a single one of my rights has ever been threatened by Saddam Hussein or by any other Iraqi. We may argue and speculate about exactly why Baby Bush is sending all those folks over to Iraq to kill people and break things, but one thing that ought to be crystal-clear to everyone concerned is that protection of my rights has nothing to do with it.

Quote
You claim this is an act of imperialism, You are wrong on this or you don't know what you are talking about. We are not going over there to take over the country of Iraq and install our goverment.

On the contrary, that's precisely what Baby Bush claims he intends to do. He's even picked out his military governor; haven't you heard?

Quote
[Sadistic leaders] will be preying on [your rights] if not taken care of now, and if we wait until you anti-war people decide to have a change of heart it will be either to late or we will have a lot more soldiers killed doing this.

Really? Which of my rights will they be preying on?

My assertion that none of my rights are threatened by Hussein is precisely the reason I'm opposed to sending our troops over to fight him. If he was dangerous to me or to the national security of the US--well, that's what the military is supposed to be for, right? That's why it's called the Department of Defense--because it's supposed to be defending us, not going around picking fights with nations it figures it can beat up on pretty easily.

Quote
Imperialism, is exactly what Iraq had in mind when they took over Kuwait in the early 90's, we went over there then and run them out to prevent this and will be taking the steps now to prevent it from happening again.

If I've given you the impression that I need to be convinced that Hussein is a bad guy, then I apologize. Of course he's a bad guy. Of course his bid for Kuwait was imperialist.

But prevent it from happening again? What do you mean? Is he threatening to take over Kuwait again? I hadn't heard that. Neither has Kuwait.

Quote
How would you like it if, you made the statement you just made and your country's leader sent soldiers out to have you killed or tortured becuase he didn't like it?

Have you read the USA PATRIOT Act, the Homeland Security Act, and "Patriot II?" Stuff like this is precisely what the Bush administration wants to be able to do here in America, to Americans. They're already doing some of it to a number of us. Do a Web search on the name "Jose Padilla" if this catches you by surprise.

Quote
What if we let this person or person's go and you have to live in fear of your life or loved ones lives from being Gas'ed or a nuclear threat? Whould you want to carry a gas mask with you while hunting or fishing? Would you want to stay home 24/7 to make sure the Kids and Wife got to a fallout shelter in the event of a nuclear attack? I'm sure you wouldn't, but if we let something like this go then the possibility grows.

Guess what? I've already spent over $2000 I don't really have, with the prospect of much more to come in the near future (including gas masks and potassium iodate), over the last few weeks to try to prepare my family for what I think will be coming once Baby Bush has successfully colonized Iraq. This is absolutely not a hypothetical for me.

Quote
Yes it would and by you speaking againist this possible War, you are putting these Men and Women down that are trying to protect your rights.

No again. I suppose I could say it yet one more time, but I doubt it'd do any good.

Ah, what the hey--here goes anyway: my rights are not in danger from Iraq, they're in danger from Baby Bush. How can American soldiers in the Middle East protect me from him?

Quote
Try to rethink your opinion on this matter and look at all the possibilties that make it right and wrong.

Always.


"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain--that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." --Lysander Spooner, 1867
Re: Support #141747 02/25/03
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,123
7400Hunter Offline
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,123
Barak,

You don't see the "Big Picture", If we wait we will have a life threatening war on our hands. Maybe Iraq probably dosen't have the capabilities as of right now to be a threat or the U.S. but what about tomorrow? Give them time and it will happen I would bet my next paycheck on it in a heart beat! We would probably put in a Military run Goverment if we defeated Saddam, while the country was weak and open to other leaders like him, but you cannot tell me this is an act of imperialism. But in a short while the country could have elections and be able to FREELY elect what ever type of Goverment and leaders they wanted, without fear of their lives. You cannot have a free election if the people voting know they will be killed if they don't vote a certain way! Nor can you have a free and true election if your leader has henchmen stuffing a ballot box. You would know if you have ever been in another country, that people cannot express themselves like we do. Why? Because their goverment would kill them. I can only say you would have to be in another country like this to know, unless you are open minded enough to see this and from what I gather you aren't. You cannot be a supporter with out supporting the reason we have troops over there, the only thing you are doing is putting shame into their minds like the anti-war citizens did in the 60's and 70's. I know because I was on that end of the stick then and will suffer from now to my death because of it along with thousands of other that served then. I just hope these people that done this back then are open minded enough now to see what they done then and support this action now. If not I hope it will be on their conscious for the duration of their lives as well. This is hard for me to say and probably shouldn't but I have and if you are guilty of this, then you know how I feel about you.

Last edited by 7400Hunter; 02/25/03.

Jim Croce: You don't tug on Superman's cape, spit into the wind ...

Re: Support #141748 02/25/03
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 40
Tee Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 40
I'd call Barak an idiot but he does that so well himself I don't need to. Anyone who fears US government more than ragheaded terrorist enemies that want to kill us is an idiot....Barak PLEASE MOVE TO FRANCE WHERE YOU BELONG, PLEASE <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

IC-B

Re: Support #141749 02/25/03
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,833
AFP Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,833
There's no need to call Barak an idiot or kick him out of the country. He is a good honest man, albeit one with a huge misunderstanding of this situation. His condcut has been above reproach here. I'm very willing for honest men to have disagreements.

Blaine

Re: Support #141750 02/25/03
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 17,244
Barak Offline
Campfire Kahuna
Offline
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 17,244
Quote
If we wait we will have a life threatening war on our hands. Maybe Iraq probably dosen't have the capabilities as of right now to be a threat or the U.S. but what about tomorrow? Give them time and it will happen I would bet my next paycheck on it in a heart beat!

Yep, I've heard this before. When I think about it, though, it falls through. Iraq may have the capability to threaten the US at some point in the future, and because we think that if they had the capability they might make the threats, we have to pulverize them right now--but we're conveniently ignoring Red China and North Korea, both of which a) have the capability to threaten us, and b) have actually done so in so many words. Why are we going after Iraq and not China or North Korea? Whatever the real reason is, it obviously can't be because they're at the top of our threat priority list.

Quote
We would probably put in a Military run Goverment if we defeated Saddam, while the country was weak and open to other leaders like him, but you cannot tell me this is an act of imperialism.

No offense intended, but I can and I did. If somebody invaded America and set up a puppet government while they forced the population through a political indoctrination program, I'd call that imperialism, and I suspect you would too. I have to be fair...

Quote
But in a short while the country could have elections and be able to FREELY elect what ever type of Goverment and leaders they wanted, without fear of their lives.

They'll be given a slate of leaders to pick from who all support the US government--exactly the same way we are every four years.

Quote
You would know if you have ever been in another country, that people cannot express themselves like we do. Why? Because their goverment would kill them.

Do you know why Jose Padilla is in prison? Because he (an American) expressed himself in a way the US government didn't like. We don't have to go overseas to find repressive governments.

Quote
You cannot be a supporter with out supporting the reason we have troops over there, the only thing you are doing is putting shame into their minds like the anti-war citizens did in the 60's and 70's.

That depends on what you mean. I can appreciate and admire a Remington 870 slide-action riot shotgun, while still deploring the way Officer David Hawn used it to shoot a Mexican kid in the back while he lay face down on the floor with his hands cuffed. I can understand the beauty and craftsmanship of a Remington 700 heavy-barrel bolt-action rifle in 308Win, and still be horrified by the way Agent Lon Horiuchi shot Vicki Weaver in the face with it as she held her baby in the doorway of her house. Similarly, I can be inspired by the training, might, and magnificence of the United States Armed Services at the same time that I'm appalled at the arrogance, hubris, and corruption of its Commander in Chief.

As to the shame in their minds, that's a decision for them to make, not me. If they can defend their actions, then what I think doesn't make any difference. If they go ahead and do things they're ashamed of, then they're the ones soiling their character--and again, what I think doesn't make any difference. That goes for all of us, not just soldiers. If your employer orders you to commit a shameful act, you resign.


"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain--that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." --Lysander Spooner, 1867
Re: Support #141751 02/25/03
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 17,244
Barak Offline
Campfire Kahuna
Offline
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 17,244
Quote
If the US really wanted Iraqi oil, we'd just have taken it in 1991.

1991 was Papa Bush. 2003 is Baby Bush. There's a difference. I never trusted Papa Bush either, but the worst thing he did to me was break his promise not to raise my taxes. Baby Bush is a whole different story. Even the Democrats never seriously dreamed of getting the sort of authoritarian legislation passed that Baby Bush has managed. (Why? Because the Republicans would have been watching them. But with Bush it's okay, because he's a "compassionate conservative.")

In addition, at least Papa Bush was honest enough to raise taxes. Baby Bush, on the other hand, claims to have lowered taxes, but is running up huge budget deficits. Deficits create inflation, which leeches away your money just as effectively--but less honestly--than increased taxes.

Quote
There is a clear and present danger from Saddam.

Can you show it to me?

Quote
Of course Iraq's neighbors are going to say Saddam isn't a threat--they are afraid of him.

You can do better than this, AFP. The reason they say Saddam isn't a threat is because they don't want the US tramping around in the Middle East where it doesn't belong, blowing [email protected]#$ up and hacking people off. If he was a threat, they'd want us there fighting him.

Quote
Bush II alreayd had his war, and he could gain much more politically by not going to war in Iraq.

To which war do you refer?

Gain more politically? You mean if he said, "Sorry, guys, just kidding" and folded up his tents and went home? He'd be a laughingstock! North Korea, which is scrutinizing us for any weakness, would become positively incorrigible. So would Iraq, and possibly the whole of OPEC as well. Tony "The Lapdog" Blair would be horribly embarrassed. The US would lose face all across the world--which is why he has to go to war now, even if he still can't find any WMDs and his public support sucks big green hairy ones.

He'd gain politically with me, but he doesn't care what I think: I didn't vote for him and I can't imagine ever doing so in the future.

Quote
However, he is govenred by principal, which is a rare things today in politics.

Just because he's not getting hummers in the Oval Office from the hired help and porking everything in a skirt doesn't make him a principled man. He's violated his oath of office (the one about upholding and defending the Constitution) much more severely, in my opinion, than Slick Willy did--perhaps even more severely than any President since Lincoln.

Last edited by Barak; 02/26/03.

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain--that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." --Lysander Spooner, 1867
Re: Support #141752 02/25/03
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 96,121
S
Steelhead Offline
Campfire Oracle
Offline
Campfire Oracle
S
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 96,121
Subject: The Difference Between Barak , Conservatives and Texans.....


Question: You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner and is running at you while screaming obscenities. In your hand is a Glock .40 and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?

Barak Answer
Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!
Does the man look poor or oppressed?
Have I ever done anything to him that is inspiring him to attack?
Could we run away?
What does my wife think?
What about the kids?
Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?
What does the law say about this situation?
Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me?
Does he definitely want to kill me or would he just be content to wound me?
If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? This is all so confusing!
I need to debate this with some friends for a few days to try to come to a conclusion.

Conservative Answer:
BANG!

Texan's Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click...
(sounds of clip being ejected and fresh clip installed)
Wife: "Sweetheart, he looks like he's still moving, what do you kids think?"
Son: "Mom's right Dad, I saw it too..."
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
Daughter: "Nice group Daddy!"


Enough said! Thanks for the new forum from a guy that is in his 19th year of service.



"Dear Lord, save me from Your followers"
Re: Support #141753 02/25/03
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 10,549
RickBin Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 10,549
Barak:

In the entire lifetime of this website, I don't think I have ever publicly made my feelings known when I disagreed with a poster. This time, I'm inclined otherwise.

You, sir, are delusional.

Saddam does not pose a threat to the US? Neither did Bin Laden.

Saddam has infinitely more money, power, and political support in the Arab world. Solely with the capability he is documented to have, right now, in terms of chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction, he poses a huge threat to the US. Look what a teaspoonful of Anthrax did to this country in the wake of 9/11. Saddam has tons of chemical WMD's unaccounted for. How can he not pose a threat? Why hasn't he used them? Because he's a tactician and a power-monger. He wants to win, to garner power. He knows he can do serious damage with what he has, but he'll lose in the end, a la Osama. He's been desperately after a nuke, and that is, by all accounts, a well documented certainty, for years. The day he gets them, he's on equal footing with the US. Explain to me how allowing that to happen is a good thing. Let me guess. You agree with France that increased inspections can keep him contained. Yeah. Riiiiiight!

Another thing. You don't have a monopoly on the Constitution. It is a sacred document to all of us. It was was paid for in blood. It's been preserved at the cost of more blood. The rights delineated therein are your birthright because of that shed blood, not simply because our Founding Fathers put pen to paper. It, sir, has backbone behind it. It gives you the right to speak your peace, but it also gives me the right to call bullshit.

I call bullshit.

The United States is the greatest nation in the world. George Bush is its President. He may not be perfect, but he is a fine, moral, principled man with backbone. He is my President, and he is your President. He goes to war in the name of the USA against the likes of Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and the other scumbag despots around the world who would see this Nation crumble, and my choice as to whom to support is EASY!

You choose to place your support elsewhere.

Like I said: You, sir, are delusional.

God Bless America.



"Outdoor Channel is not going to do it."
Uncle Frank
Re: Support #141754 02/25/03
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,837
Sheister Offline
Campfire Guide
Offline
Campfire Guide
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,837
Rick,

Well said but I fear you are wasting your breath on this character.

The fact is, there has always been a segment of the population that was content to accept all the advantages of our society and feel perfectly snug and safe in their homes and beliefs without having to worry about having to sacrifice to defend or even earn these privileges we sometimes take for granted. God forbid, they might have to actually spill blood to earn these rights- that is what the Soldiers are for!
I guess for better or for worse, our system guarantees them the right to turn their noses up at and criticize whatever they don't agree with- all with the caveat " I was born with this right and if you don't like it tough!"
I get the feeling that most of these kind of people weren't the ones picked early when sides were divided up for games in school.
Having their head in the sand is a way of life and it is obvious that isn't going to change anytime soon. - Sheister


Never underestimate your ability to overestimate your ability.
Re: Support #141755 02/25/03
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,123
7400Hunter Offline
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,123
I agree AFP, but he does have a bad misunderstanding of the situation in Iraq and his rights.


Jim Croce: You don't tug on Superman's cape, spit into the wind ...

Re: Support #141756 02/25/03
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,123
7400Hunter Offline
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,123
Barak,

I have a few questions for you, answer if you don't care if you do then thats okay too, since its your right, but not because you were born.
1. Did you vote in the pres. election?
2. Have you been in the military?
3. Do you feel like you should be able to say whether you can own and have guns or not.
4. Would you "fight to kill", someone if they came in your house and raped wife and kids, while destorying your house.
5. What is your age?


Jim Croce: You don't tug on Superman's cape, spit into the wind ...

Re: Support #141757 02/25/03
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 40
Tee Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 40
AFP- I didn't call him an idiot, he did that himself. Perhaps he's too smart for his own good, which still can make some an idiot. His beliefs about the POSSIBLE (it's up to Saddam) war are on the same "track" as Woody Harelson, Susan Sarandin, Phil Donahue, Rosie Odonal, Fred Durst, I could go on and on add nauseum, so maybe he's not an idiot....NOT....) Also you said I had him kicked out of the country.. I was just begging for him to move, I think he'd enjoy himself alot more, definatly with a lot less fear, where he could enjoy his french whine....

Re: Support #141758 02/25/03
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 40
Tee Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 40
Hey Jacques Chirac Barak- Any comment??? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4

Moderated by  RickBin, SYSOP 

RR1
Who's Online Now
423 registered members (1minute, 257_X_50, 264magnum, 007FJ, 222ND, 260Remguy, 47 invisible), 1,567 guests, and 1,023 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
RR2/3










Fish & Game Departments | Solunar Tables | Mission Statement | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | DMCA
Hunting | Fishing | Camping | Backpacking | Reloading | Campfire Forums | Gear Shop
Copyright © 2000-2020 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
 
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3
(Release build 20190728)
PHP: 7.3.21 Page Time: 0.047s Queries: 14 (0.003s) Memory: 0.9023 MB (Peak: 1.1219 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2020-08-14 04:35:55 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS