Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by IJ Reilly, Feb 20, 2006.
can any republicans here defend this? hopefully without resorting to bashing ted kennedy.
Well, the terrorists do hate our freedom. So I guess we've got to get rid of those. The freedom I mean, not the terrorists. Too hard to get all of them terrorists, since we seem to be making more than we kill. That and being in the wrong "enemy" country and all. Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, same difference right? Makes perfect sense I guess. This little annoyance would only get in the way of that.
And Ted Kennedy is fat, so it's all ok.
Well, zim, I'm not particularly "a Republican", for all that I'm conservative. But there's no excuse for a helluva lot of anti-liberty stuff that's been going on for way before Bush--as well as during Bush's tenure.
solvs, you don't think the Jihadists hate our freedoms? Does your girlfriend, sister or wife ever wear a bathing suit? Drive a car? Speak her mind in public? Listen or dance to Rock music? Have a high degree of education? Have an executive position? Are those not freedoms?
Within the US system, are you not free to draw any derogatory cartoon you wish, without fear of violence against you?
Sure they do, but I'm sure there are a lot of other reasons too. I was mostly making fun of the Bush rhetoric. And the irony of what they're trying to do while they say such things. I'm sure Clinton did some bad things too, but he isn't President anymore, and neither is Bush I, so I'm focusing more on what Jr. is doing rather than what has been happening since "before Bush" as you put it. But I can agree there has been a negative trend in the last couple of decades, and I'm glad to know you can see it in GW too.
I'd say we've converted iGary, DHM, and others to "our side", so we could get you too, but I think BushCo are doing it just fine by themselves. I can't believe I ever even gave them a chance considering how badly they've been screwing it up all along. Ted is still fat and drunk.
I've been voting for what's appeared to be the lesser of two weevils for so long...And the cornbread still stays messed up.
To me, the only difference between the ruling parties is which particular liberties they attack. Ancient joke that the Republicans hate the First and Fourth Amendments; the Democrats hate the Second and Fifth.
Just figure after any election, "BOHICA!"
You and me both. Though I'm pretty sure Kerry would have only sucked a little bit, vs. Bush, who is making conservatives look pretty bad at the moment. What was that Bill Maher used to say? "I'd be a Republican if only they would". What's funny is watching Bush fail when he does liberal things and the neocons talk about how great he is, but when Clinton did conservative things and was good at it, they couldn't stand him. It's more about the (D) or (R) than what they actually do. Not that some Dems don't do the same.
Wonder what would happen if Bush Jr. got a bj?
Does anyone actually think bin Laden hates us because of our freedoms? That's like saying neo-cons are actually fanatically pro-life.
Well, somewhat... but mostly how we use our freedoms. Otherwise, they'd be attacking Canada or Switzerland. But it's a good line to use on people who believe we are the freest country in the world. Guess it depends on your definition of freedom. I mean, we're great and all, but we could always use a little improvement in some things. Especially now.
He's said himself the real reasons why, but no one seems to be listening.
bin Laden is on record as to why he hates us. His sympathizers are also on record as to why our culture makes us the Great Satan, with all that having been made clear decades ago.
So you believe everything bin Laden says? I'm surprised at your gullibility then.
Well, mac, what he said after 9/11 was certainly quite clear. And, given his world-view about Islam, quite logical. (Given the difference between his world-view and mine, I wouldn't call his view rational. Logical does not necessarily equate to rational. )
Iran's ayatollahs have been equally clear and consistent, ever since the fall of the Shah.
Why should I not believe them?
Diane Feinstein has been consistently saying for years that she doesn't want to take your guns away, she just wants to regulate them. Do you take her at face value, or do you suspect she might be so inclined given the chance?
Telling me you take bin Laden's word at face value is incredible to me. No possible posturing (even consistent posturing that has always worked and will always work, so why change it right?) on his part? No devious double dealing from a straight shooter like bin Laden?
I for one don't trust a word that comes out of his mouth.
Me either. It must be the beard.
I'm not saying I trust him, but it's like Bin Laden told us what pissed them off, what they've been saying for years, and we went and made things worse. I'm not saying we should have "given in", or even if we did it would have actually helped things any (so don't twist my words). Or that we deserved it, because we didn't. But "bring it on" is not a strategy. If anything, seems to me we've played right into his hands and done exactly the wrong things. The country is split, the rest of the world hates us, our freedoms are at risk now because we're so afraid we let BushCo get away with far too much, and it seems like we're making more terrorists than we're stopping. Not to mention Iraq, we're stuck there and our military is stretched to the brink, with a decrease in people wanting to join up.
Bin Laden doesn't have to lie, either way he wins. And when he says "here's why I hate you" I believe him more than the administration saying it's because of "our freedom". Which they're chipping away at. And we let them because we're afraid. As they continue to piss off the ME, as well as the rest of the world and half the country who feels helpless to do anything. It's a vicious cycle.