The presidency of GWB has now devolved into a criminal conspiracy...(vid)

[Come Back to NY]

[QUOTE=fukushimajin;2208311]why so many question marks?

Please slow down and read --

We're not the first nation to ever be the victim of a terrorist campaign, we needn't descend to the uncertain and[B] desperate[/B] tactics of torture, humiliation, rendition, indiscriminent spying on citizens. I guess I just have more faith in our principles / way of life than you do.[/QUOTE]

and how did nations who had been attacked (France, Germany, etc) or wanted to prevent attacks react??? by appeasing and buying off terrorists....I guess I just believe you should stand up for principles/way of life rather than appease as you do....

[QUOTE]]What traditions are we losing? The former AG said before Congress that the US Constitution does not grant the right of Habeas Corpus -- the fact that he even said it is smelly dump on your rights and mine. The fact that the people who wrote that brief for him are still in the White House is a liquid dump on the Constitution. You've got to stop rooting and start listening.[/QUOTE]

once again another misquote taken out of context thanks to the lib media...is this just another "modernization" of what Gonzalez said???

[QUOTE]Hey, I'm all for unpopular wars -- let's pull out of Iraq and really do a good job in Afghanistan and help the poor SOB's in Chad. Maybe we'd get some credibility / allies back that George W Dummy has lost for us.[/QUOTE]

funny thing about America losing it's credibility....I was going to start a thread with this article but now's as good a time as any...

[QUOTE]
[B]If America’s Image Is So Bad, Why Do Pro-Americans Like Sarkozy Keep Getting Elected? November 12, 2007[/B]

“It was by watching America grow that men and women understood that freedom was possible. What made America great was her ability to transform her own dream into hope for all mankind.”

No, these are not the words of Ronald Reagan. Nor are they the words of George W. Bush, Abraham Lincoln or George Washington. They are the words of the current president of France.

Bill Clinton last week was the latest to jump on the bandwagon of top Democrats suggesting that electing Hillary Clinton, or another liberal president, would be the only way for America to repair its image with the world.

Of course, the idea of repairing America’s image assumes that America’s image in the world is broken, which is now an unquestioned fact in the eyes of Democratic leaders. But how true is that assumption?

Probably nothing provides a better manifestation of America’s supposedly broken relations with the world than the deterioration in U.S./French relations during the debate over the invasion of Iraq.

Former French President Jacques Chirac had, among other missteps, passionately opposed the toppling of his old personal friend, Saddam Hussein. Chirac had also threatened Eastern European countries with exclusion from the European Union for being pro-American, and sent his foreign minister to Africa to lobby those nations on the U.N. Security Council to vote against the United States.

Of course, congressional Democrats blamed Bush’s alleged lack of tact in diplomacy and international relations for the resultant damaged relations with the French. How would the world respond to Bush’s behavior, they thought?


Enter Nicolas Sarkozy. Here is a man who not only did not hide his pro-American sentiments during his candidacy for the French Presidency, but who proudly, loudly and clearly declared his admiration of America and American ideals. A few months ago, the French put him in charge of their country, and it wasn’t even close.


Less than two years before, the Germans had thrown Chancellor Gerhard Schroder, Chirac’s partner in the anti-American crusade, out of office, replacing him with Chancellor Angela Merkel. Merkel was no closet pro-American either, and the Germans fully knew of her leanings. She had also spoken in support of the invasion of Iraq, and has stood by the United States against Iran.

Less than two years ago, Bill Clinton himself stood with former Canadian Minister Paul Martin, and the two proceeded to jointly criticize the U.S. administration. The next month, Canadians kicked Martin out and replaced him with Stephen Harper, a pro-American conservative. Martin had run much of his campaign based on condemnation of Harper’s friendship with the United States. Prime Minister Harper now owes him a big one.

It is no coincidence that all of these pro-American leaders tend to be conservative. The United States has in the past few years spread a message of capitalism, free trade and strong opposition to terror. Also, America now bases much of its foreign policy on the concept of spreading democracy to countries who need it. Conservatives are attracted to such ideas.

Many other democracies have elected or re-elected pro-American or conservative governments in the last four years. These include those who play some of the most important roles in our international relations, including in Western and Eastern Europe, Scandinavia and South America.

One year ago, the Swedes elected the first conservative government in the better part of a century. Portugal has elected the first conservative president in over 30 years. Greece recently ended a long era of left-wing rule.

The Colombians have elected a president who is highly cooperative with the United States (curiously, congressional Democrats will still not approve a free trade agreement with Colombia for political reasons). Mexico elected a friend of America as president, although his opponent, as in France, Germany and Canada, attempted to use this quality against him.


Britain of course is still led by the Labour Party, but has seen pro-American Tony Blair get replaced with a possibly more pro-American Gordon Brown, who, by the way, is quite concerned about the Conservative Party winning the next elections.

This global trend of electing conservative, pro-American governments is due to the kind of solid foreign policy and leadership that the world had missed during the Clinton years. And except for those leaders whom Bill Clinton aids in criticizing the United States, such as Canada’s rejected Martin, leaders of democracies today are friends who are reaching out to us in a manner we have not seen in a long time. These are leaders with whom we are happy to work, regardless of disagreements.


Our relations with the world are not broken. When Sarkozy spoke in Congress last week, he was met with a series of standing ovations and a room full of smiling U.S. legislators who came out unanimously optimistic about the state of Franco-American relations.

When Chirac first addressed Congress in 1996 during the Clinton presidency, only about 100 members were present, because others were so upset with Chirac that they boycotted his speech. Talk about broken relations – good thing President Bush was here to repair them.
[/QUOTE]

[quote=cr726;2208400]You are right on, we would of never been able to do those things in 1942 unless we had allies who actually fought with us. Now go back in time and see what would happen if we fought WWII all alone.[/quote]

another one with a bizarro world history book

where do you get your news, pravda?
(said iron man to titanium man once upon a time)

home schooled in a crack house ill bet

japan-wise, we essentially fought alone. the colonial powers didnt
have the resources and russia wasnt in the pacific theatre
(no, its not a movie house)
until the last days.

let me break it to you gently

we might be speaking [I]deutsche [/I]
today if we didnt tip the war in the Allies favor

[fukushimajin]

[QUOTE=Come Back to NY;2208536]and how did nations who had been attacked (France, Germany, etc) or wanted to prevent attacks react??? by appeasing and buying off terrorists....I guess I just believe you should stand up for principles/way of life rather than appease as you do....


once again another misquote taken out of context thanks to the lib media...is this just another "modernization" of what Gonzalez said???


funny thing about America losing it's credibility....I was going to start a thread with this article but now's as good a time as any...[/QUOTE]

CBTNY,


Have you heard of google? I mean, you keep asking me to prove things that are 5 seconds of research away. Seriously.

Did I not just say that I would rather be killed by a terrorist bomb than than surrender my privacy rights? How do you get appeasement from that? Please be specific. Fight, just fight smart, fight the right enemy.

Gonzales claimed the Court did not cite such a right, then added, “There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution.”

Specter pushed back. “Wait a minute. The constitution says you can’t take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion?” Specter told Gonzales, “You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General.” There is also video of this at: [url]http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/19/gonzales-habeas/[/url]

Despite your many question marks, I keep slapping down your rebuttles. :) Please include more facts / argument and fewer questions, I'm getting tired.

Why did Sarkozy get elected? The French hate immigration -- they want him to stop it. The immigration issue may bring a lot of right wingers to power in Europe -- here too, its a tough issue. I'm sure you have an incredibly simple solution you didn't hear from Hannity.

[JetsFan2012]

[QUOTE=Jetdawgg;2208455]
[url]

[quote=cr726;2207432]Not you Winston, Frushing has made statements in the past about Iraq being directly involved on 09-11.

A huge problem with the war on terror is that we have not finished the original war in Afghanistan.[/quote]

hey lady...
i said no such thing

i have said iraq was linked to wtc1
plenty of links and motive to do so

the war in iraq has never been directly linked to 9/11
bush never has done so
some people have looked for links, european
meetings in germany and czech rep. , and so forth

9/11 made it necessary to crush husseins
ambitions like a bug
likewise your little friends ahmanutjob and kim jung mentally ill

that all being said, given the malevolent history
of radical islam and the alliances
of arab & islamic dictatorships
that give it aid and comfort ,
some bellicose
(i. e. the Arab League, OIC)
it wouldnt surprise me in the least if iraq
had some role in past al qaeda attacks

it wouldnt surprise me if someone high
up in the saudi or jordanian royal family,
or irans mullahs,
gave $ to 9-11 attackers either, what of it?

in the midst of 9-11, i thought to myself, who
would commit this heinous act-
the Amish? Buddhists? Karl Rove? L Ron Hubbard? Ron Paul?

no, I thought Al Qaeda, Iraq, Iran, Libya, PLO in that order

what normal rational people wouldn't

im not a naive, anti-semitic chump that thinks
only some islamic nations give islamo-kooks,
whatever their label or movement(s) are called,
official support and others don't

these sociopathic freaks get $, sympathy and tactical support
from the entire ummah, even from the poorest among them
(i. e. somalia, bangladesh)

once any whackjob imam within earshot tells them to,
it's their duty to support mass murder

[Come Back to NY]

[QUOTE=fukushimajin;2208571]CBTNY,


Have you heard of google? I mean, you keep asking me to prove things that are 5 seconds of research away. Seriously.

Gonzales claimed the Court did not cite such a right, then added, “There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution.”

Specter pushed back. “Wait a minute. The constitution says you can’t take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion?” Specter told Gonzales, “You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General.” There is also video of this at: [url]http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/19/gonzales-habeas/[/url][/QUOTE]

I'm well aware of google...I also know this same topic was debated on this forum the day the story hit the wires and there's no reason for me to rehash it for a newbie lefty like you......I also appreciate your classic leftist hypocrisy...you want to bellow about "Faux News" then use a lunatic leftist website to back up your claim...:yes:

[QUOTE]Did I not just say that I would rather be killed by a terrorist bomb than than surrender my privacy rights? How do you get appeasement from that? Please be specific. Fight, just fight smart, fight the right enemy. [/QUOTE]

and as I said- your thinking is a danger to America...giving up and saying "I'd rather die at the hands of a terrorist" versus some made up bullsh!t about "surrendering privacy rights is in fact appeasement- congratulations...

[QUOTE]Despite your many question marks, I keep slapping down your rebuttles. :) Please include more facts / argument and fewer questions, I'm getting tired.[/QUOTE]

rebuttles??? facts??? where??? all you've done is put classic leftist BS spin on you ridiculous posts...you claim Lincoln had the backing of the Consitution...I asked where in the constitution is authority given to expel politicians without due process as Lincoln did....response??? zero....

you claim Republicans are wrong as they use the threat of terrorism as a political tool-terrorism which has killed 1000's on American soild...I point out rat-wingers of your ilk run around with fear mongering (something they've perfected) b!tching.."we're not safe...we're not safe".... response???? zero....

you claim FDR had the backing of congress- then incompetently try and switch the topic to Japanese American soldiers....I point out congress voted overwhelmingly to give GWB authrization for use of force??? response?? the usual leftist BS blah-blah-blah-blah....

I point out the media is blantantly leftist and use specific examples...your response??? blah-blah-blah with nothing to back it up but the usual baseless leftist allegations...

[QUOTE]Why did Sarkozy get elected? The French hate immigration -- they want him to stop it. The immigration issue may bring a lot of right wingers to power in Europe -- here too, its a tough issue. I'm sure you have an incredibly simple solution you didn't hear from Hannity.[/QUOTE]

meanwhile Sarkozy uses the non-credible country of America as his example...and pro-America/pro-Bush John Morgan is re-elected in Australia...and the Germans kick out the liberal who ran on an anti-American platform....the sort of sh!t you won't hear at Err America or read at thinkprogress....

no wonder you are tired...it must be tiring to defend defenseless positions...

[quote=Queens Jet Fan;2208376]Because after Pearl Harbor Germany formally declared war on us and had subs roaming our shores. Is that not a good reason?

Suprised at you Flushing. You should know better![/quote]

of course I know the reason, doc
i didnt go to public skool!

even before WW2
technically we were neutral but were not, we
had the Lend-Lease Program with Britain
before Japan attacked us, my dad
was a foreman for military suppliers
and our destroyers had hostile contact
long before 12.7.41

the gist of the "conversation" is that
whatchamacallit thinks that
the us cannot fight a multi-front war
today-if we did it successfully decades ago with more
challenges, wheres the logic to that

cut n runners often liken our current war
efforts (which truly is only a fraction of
our military resources)
with say, germanys inability to fight both
russia and us/british empire on several european fronts
in 1944/5

[fukushimajin]

CBTNY,

I accuse you of the following offenses:

1) Saying that a video of of Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez saying exactly what you said he didn't say is no good because the website is politically progressive.

2) The fact that you didn't know about Article I section 9 of the Constitution, but felt comfortable lecturing us all about how Lincoln disregarded the Constitution just like Bushy.

3) Insistence that every quote or fact you don't agree with is false, fake or out of context.

4) Misuse of the word "defenseless" when you mean indefensible.

5) Your many question marks.

6) Your misunderstanding of the term hypocrisy. I made fun of fox (which you say you don't watch), I also made fun of PBS (I called them eggheads:)) I also said it didn't matter because we all have many sources to choose from. That is not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is more like saying your a conservative because you want smaller, limited government, then defending the government when they overreach their powers. I don't know you well enough to say that you're a hypocrite, but the Repubs left in Congress sure are.

7) Your use of the inscrutable term "rat wingers". Sounds like what Republicans in Georgia call themselves.

8) Making me research a Franklin Quote that exists in 40,000 variations


Your punishment:

Have a nice evening -- I hope the waxed, shirtless, muscle-man of your imagination with a 1950's pompodour comes to you in a dream tonight with his shiny broadsword and drives away all the terrorists and immigrants and leftists and scoops you up in his arms and carries you away to someplace where taxes are 0% military spending is 100% and no-one can get an abortion and, of course, gays can't be married...

:zzz:

[Queens Jet Fan]

[QUOTE=flushingjet;2208640]of course I know the reason, doc
i didnt go to public skool!

even before WW2
technically we were neutral but were not, we
had the Lend-Lease Program with Britain
before Japan attacked us, my dad
was a foreman for military suppliers
and our destroyers had hostile contact
long before 12.7.41

the gist of the "conversation" is that
whatchamacallit thinks that
the us cannot fight a multi-front war
today-if we did it successfully decades ago with more
challenges, wheres the logic to that

cut n runners often liken our current war
efforts (which truly is only a fraction of
our military resources)
with say, germanys inability to fight both
russia and us/british empire on several european fronts
in 1944/5[/QUOTE]

Flushing you brought up the war on Germany analogy to compare going into Iraq after Afhanistan. My retort was just to point out that there is no analogy at all. From your other posts it seems like you think that all Arab and Muslim countries are one of the same so if you are fighting one of them you might as well fight them all. My question to you then is suppose you fight that war. What do you do when you win? Who will be in charge? Your not going to change the fanatics and if you talk of nation building and democracies the fanatics always seem to win elections that take place there.

Your WWII analogy to fighting wars on different fronts is absurd. During WWII the nation was fully mobilized for war. A draft was in place and we went to a wartime economy without tax cuts putting nearly all our resources into defense. How can you compare that to now?

[quote=Queens Jet Fan;2208830]Flushing you brought up the war on Germany analogy to compare going into Iraq after Afhanistan. My retort was just to point out that there is no analogy at all. From your other posts it seems like you think that all Arab and Muslim countries are one of the same so if you are fighting one of them you might as well fight them all. My question to you then is suppose you fight that war. What do you do when you win? Who will be in charge? Your not going to change the fanatics and if you talk of nation building and democracies the fanatics always seem to win elections that take place there.

Your WWII analogy to fighting wars on different fronts is absurd. During WWII the nation was fully mobilized for war. A draft was in place and we went to a wartime economy without tax cuts putting nearly all our resources into defense. How can you compare that to now?[/quote]

its true not all islamic countries are the same
ones more backwards and anti-semitic than the next

just because say, qatar or uae dont have nuclear aspirations
or are known to harbor al qaeda that the people and
the rulers there dont
sympathise and give material support

i just go by a lifetime of past experience

i see which countries are client soviet states then and now
i see which countries refuse to make even a cold peace with israel
even after decades
i see which countries align together and vote en bloc against
whats right and host holocaust denial conferences
i see which countries sympathise with and support terror and who
danced on 9-11

even if libs dont

now im not foolish like many here

i know countries awash in oil have no need
for nuclear anything

i know sharia law would be completely
illegal in our liberal america except
for special lib sanctioned sharia zones
footbaths and the like

i know i can walk into just about
any temple or church
and not be stopped at the door
yet if i dare enter a mosque I
may be ejected
imagine that-
banned from a "holy" place

i have self-respect for myself,
i dont hate myself to the extent
that i would assign any of my rights
to or give respect
to those who would
kill me without a second thought

they already tried it once

thats enough for me

9-11 cleared up any and ALL doubts
and misgivings i might have had

i dont expect libs to think this country
is powerful, or worth much, or is
better than others thanks to their
moral relativism

as for world war 2, i can tell you havent
studied it much

when it started, we were
NOT fully mobilized, then as on 9-11

we had 3 countries at war with us in a matter of
days, & already behind the 8-ball militarily
as we suffered some heavy losses at Pearl Harbor
and lots of aged/disused capability

if our carriers were in Hawaii we may have
really been screwed

we did end up with a draft, but thousands volunteered as
well. The GOP, who were the isolationist
party, threw its support behind the war
not like the fifth column on the left today.

Italian and German Americans, instead
of supporting their corrupt fatherland like American
Muslims do supported their new country by
an overwhelming margin.

even with clinton cutting the military by 20%,
you cant even begin to compare our
readiness and resources today with 1941

besides, the absolute beatdown we
can give with an air / missile war doesnt need a
draft

when we were attacked back in 1941 the furthest
thing from anyones mind was post-war
cleanup on aisles G, I, & J, just defeating
them utterly. With libs thats the 1st idea
that pops in their head

reforming nazism and bushido was no small feat btw

i guess thats what bj bill thought when wtc - 1993
happened, and when our embassies were attacked and
the uss cole was attacked-why bother
you cant change islamokooks

that kick the can down the road
why bother attitude
is what gets babies on airplanes and
people going to work killed

[Come Back to NY]

[QUOTE=fukushimajin;2208748]CBTNY,

I accuse you of the following offenses:

1) Saying that a video of of Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez saying exactly what you said he didn't say is no good because the website is politically progressive.

2) The fact that you didn't know about Article I section 9 of the Constitution, but felt comfortable lecturing us all about how Lincoln disregarded the Constitution just like Bushy.

3) Insistence that every quote or fact you don't agree with is false, fake or out of context.

4) Misuse of the word "defenseless" when you mean indefensible.

5) Your many question marks.

6) Your misunderstanding of the term hypocrisy. I made fun of fox (which you say you don't watch), I also made fun of PBS (I called them eggheads:)) I also said it didn't matter because we all have many sources to choose from. That is not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is more like saying your a conservative because you want smaller, limited government, then defending the government when they overreach their powers. I don't know you well enough to say that you're a hypocrite, but the Repubs left in Congress sure are.

7) Your use of the inscrutable term "rat wingers". Sounds like what Republicans in Georgia call themselves.

8) Making me research a Franklin Quote that exists in 40,000 variations


Your punishment:

Have a nice evening -- I hope the waxed, shirtless, muscle-man of your imagination with a 1950's pompodour comes to you in a dream tonight with his shiny broadsword and drives away all the terrorists and immigrants and leftists and scoops you up in his arms and carries you away to someplace where taxes are 0% military spending is 100% and no-one can get an abortion and, of course, gays can't be married...

:zzz:[/QUOTE]


thanks but my wife has got a great rack and I'll be poking it between those bad boys tonight....

[Jetdawgg]

[QUOTE=pauliec;2208578]JD, how do you take this goon seriously? You can't possibly be serious posting nonsense like this. Bill O'Reilly is an ass, but Olbermann ripping on him makes himself out to be an even bigger ass. The stupid voices, the cheap sound effects, the one-liners that fall flat... this is where you get your information from? Yikes.

This pissing contest between O'Reilly and Olbermann really turns me off to all television news, cable or otherwise, completely. FOX was always sort of a novelty act, a news channel that basically did what it wanted, but the NBC used to be pretty credible when compared to Dan Rather on CBS and whoever was doing something irrelevant on ABC. NBC has completely shot itself in the foot with this ass of all asses, and the plague has even spread to Sunday Night Football.

All because SHEEP like you praise his glory. That's right, JD. The sheep don't only exist for FOX (or Fix'd Noize as someone else so cleverly came up with and you shamelessly stole), as there is a massive flock outside of Olbermann's palace waiting to be led around the field in a fixed gaze state of liberal hate.

If you weren't so unaware of your own hypocrisy, you'd probably be embarassed.[/QUOTE]

Paulie, thanks for the rant:yes:

The difference is that BillO has very little intellectual content on his show. KO is the ONLY MSM guy that I watch on a regular basis. YOu should be able to see the humor in the content as you see the seriousness in the very timely Special Comments