StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Why do you want him out?

For myself, there are two reasons:

Frankly, for one, he's a blithering idiot.

Second, he worries me with his idiocy and getting involved in international affairs. The two just *don't* *mix.*

verilon wrote:Why do you want him out?

For myself, there are two reasons:

Frankly, for one, he's a blithering idiot.

Second, he worries me with his idiocy and getting involved in international affairs. The two just *don't* *mix.*

Just because he does not speak with complex terms does not mean that he is a blithering idiot. As for point number two, the Democrats have been just as willing or more willing than Republicans to get involved in international disputes. Besides, we are in a war against terrorists anyways, we have to take care of business.

Commander LeoRo wrote:

verilon wrote:Why do you want him out?

For myself, there are two reasons:

Frankly, for one, he's a blithering idiot.

Second, he worries me with his idiocy and getting involved in international affairs. The two just *don't* *mix.*

Just because he does not speak with complex terms does not mean that he is a blithering idiot. As for point number two, the Democrats have been just as willing or more willing than Republicans to get involved in international disputes. Besides, we are in a war against terrorists anyways, we have to take care of business.

First, he is a blithering idiot. Look at the incriminating evidence. Large words have nothing to do with it. Second, the war in Iraq is stupid. That's what I meant by international affairs. And it's not a war against terrorists; its a war against everybody that's not allied with America.

verilon wrote:

Commander LeoRo wrote:

verilon wrote:Why do you want him out?

For myself, there are two reasons:

Frankly, for one, he's a blithering idiot.

Second, he worries me with his idiocy and getting involved in international affairs. The two just *don't* *mix.*

Just because he does not speak with complex terms does not mean that he is a blithering idiot. As for point number two, the Democrats have been just as willing or more willing than Republicans to get involved in international disputes. Besides, we are in a war against terrorists anyways, we have to take care of business.

First, he is a blithering idiot. Look at the incriminating evidence. Large words have nothing to do with it. Second, the war in Iraq is stupid. That's what I meant by international affairs. And it's not a war against terrorists; its a war against everybody that's not allied with America.

This is a war against terrorists and regimes that support terrorism. That is not everybody who is not allied with America. You are making a lot of generalizations here.

he´s an idiot.

he´s a warmonger.

he´s a right wing idiot who thinks in short terms.

he said that abstinence is better than condoms.

and on and on and on...

Second, the war in Iraq is stupid. That's what I meant by international affairs. And it's not a war against terrorists; its a war against everybody that's not allied with America.

oooh realy? Why have we not launched an Attack aginst South America? Or South Africa?

OR AUSTRIALIA? We don't have very close ties with them do we?

Austria, France, The list goes on.


I wanted Bush out of office because he was a Blithering Idiot then I realised as most people did... Whata-mintue Bush has issued tons of what are pretty damn smart orders... and he gives good speeches, just when he's by himself he... AHHHHH
The thing is the White House KNOWS Bush is a Blithering idiot, its obvious, But he's not the one in power, Bush is a Puppet, The real president is his Cabint and Cheney not Bush(You think Bush wrote and desiged those Speeches? Ha That was Cheney and Powel)

Commander LeoRo wrote:This is a war against terrorists and regimes that support terrorism. That is not everybody who is not allied with America. You are making a lot of generalizations here.

Wrong. He even said it in his Satate of the Union address last year: "You are either with America, or you are with the terrorists." By his logic, if you are not allied with America, you are inherently allied with the terrorists. Therefore, the war against terrorists (in his mind) is war against everyone that is not allied with America.

That was scare Tatic Verilon, that was not a spech to the American people that was to other Countrys, Notice Iran jumped on board with us 100% the week after that little talk?

Mr Bean wrote:

Second, the war in Iraq is stupid. That's what I meant by international affairs. And it's not a war against terrorists; its a war against everybody that's not allied with America.

oooh realy? Why have we not launched an Attack aginst South America? Or South Africa?

OR AUSTRIALIA? We don't have very close ties with them do we?

Austria, France, The list goes on.

We haven't done so because they decided to go after the current target: the Middle East. It has been since before I remember that the Middle East has been attacked by the United States.

Mr Bean wrote:That was scare Tatic Verilon, that was not a spech to the American people that was to other Countrys, Notice Iran jumped on board with us 100% the week after that little talk?

Yes, yes, I know....unfortunately,some of the rest of the world knows just how much idiocy is involved in our government this term, and that they might actually be stupid enough to try to pull it off.

verilon wrote:

Commander LeoRo wrote:This is a war against terrorists and regimes that support terrorism. That is not everybody who is not allied with America. You are making a lot of generalizations here.

Wrong. He even said it in his Satate of the Union address last year: "You are either with America, or you are with the terrorists." By his logic, if you are not allied with America, you are inherently allied with the terrorists. Therefore, the war against terrorists (in his mind) is war against everyone that is not allied with America.

That does not mean he is going to go to war with any country that refuses to help us in the war against terrorism. Did Bush ever say that?

Commander LeoRo wrote:

verilon wrote:

Commander LeoRo wrote:This is a war against terrorists and regimes that support terrorism. That is not everybody who is not allied with America. You are making a lot of generalizations here.

Wrong. He even said it in his Satate of the Union address last year: "You are either with America, or you are with the terrorists." By his logic, if you are not allied with America, you are inherently allied with the terrorists. Therefore, the war against terrorists (in his mind) is war against everyone that is not allied with America.

That does not mean he is going to go to war with any country that refuses to help us in the war against terrorism. Did Bush ever say that?

Not outrightly, no. Did I say he did?

I've got three good reasons for wanting Dubya out of office:

• He's promoted right wing religion and appointed those that have. Asscroft, nuff said.
  
  He's got a far too oversimplified view of the world. Every last one of his policies is shaped by an over simplified black and white view of the world.
  
  He going to drag us into a war because of an assasination attempt on his dad and abandoned the pursuit of legitamate terrorist to do so. (I understand this emotionally but can't support it as US policy)

verilon wrote:

Commander LeoRo wrote:

verilon wrote: Wrong. He even said it in his Satate of the Union address last year: "You are either with America, or you are with the terrorists." By his logic, if you are not allied with America, you are inherently allied with the terrorists. Therefore, the war against terrorists (in his mind) is war against everyone that is not allied with America.[/quote]

That does not mean he is going to go to war with any country that refuses to help us in the war against terrorism. Did Bush ever say that?

Not outrightly, no. Did I say he did?

Yes.

Okay, so I did.....oops. Well, it was meant to be implied that he would in his speech.

I want him out because he is a fascist pig. He is starting a war with iraq to settle a personal score "they tried to kill my dad" IIRC is the quote. Then there is homland security. I can now be prosecuted because of what I say, because of the patriot acts he FBI could search my home and not provide notice until AFTER they did it, without a warrant, and without any evidence. That is fucking bullshit. The justice department currently is holding Padilla without charges, and with no evidence other than saying he was going to detonate a dirty nuke, for months. I way I am going to launch a nuke at washington DC all the time. He is an american citizen and fre speech still applies to him. The courts have ordered the justice department to release him, and the justice departmaent has not complied. His administraytion is ripping up the constitution and half of the american people are unaware, or worse yet, DONT FUCKING CARE!

As if this somehow DOESN"T break our Third Amendment Rights...

That would be the first amendment verilon

Alyrium Denryle wrote:That would be the first amendment verilon

I mean tthe search and seizure....and I might be wrong about which Amendment.

Yes I do believe that is the third, But the free speech issue is the first.

Yes I do believe that is the third, But the free speech issue is the first.

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Yes I do believe that is the third, But the free speech issue is the first.

Heehee....somewhat of a double post.

Oh, and threatening to detonate a nuke could fall under committing treason (as outlined later in the Constitution).

It is only a threat, I make my threats in gest only. Had they actually found a nuke in his garage, then it would be a different story.

Alyrium Denryle wrote:It is only a threat, I make my threats in gest only. Had they actually found a nuke in his garage, then it would be a different story.

True, but they can take anything for hat they want.....they might have bugged his house (it IS possible!)...Anything, Alyrium, will they do to get back at the common man.