LOL, yeah, that could happen, I guess. But, so long as our constitution is upheld, and our courts don't get too powerfull, it should be okay.

[quote="Pick Axe":d093f]LOL, yeah, that could happen, I guess. But, so long as our constitution is upheld, and our courts don't get too powerfull, it should be okay.[/quote:d093f]

I liked your old sig better. annoy:

But it dissapeared on me. I had to whip something up.

[quote="Pick Axe":53f8a]LOL, yeah, that could happen, I guess. But, so long as our constitution is upheld, and our courts don't get too powerfull, it should be okay.[/quote:53f8a]

I kind of thought our courts should be more powerful, and congress and president should get weaker, but thats just me.

Nadar is as retarded as you are snipe Bush is intelligent and doesn't lie. And don't even tell me he lied about WMDs they found enough Sarin gas to kill 50,000 people under a mosque in Falujah (spelled wrong).

[quote="Scooter Pie":d515f]Nadar is as retarded as you are snipe Bush is intelligent and doesn't lie. And don't even tell me he lied about WMDs they found enough Sarin gas to kill 50,000 people under a mosque in Falujah (spelled wrong).[/quote:d515f]


oOo:

[quote="Scooter Pie":17862]Nadar is as retarded as you are snipe Bush is intelligent and doesn't lie. And don't even tell me he lied about WMDs they found enough Sarin gas to kill 50,000 people under a mosque in Falujah (spelled wrong).[/quote:17862]

you just pulled that out of your ass!
They found one shell that the dumbfuck terrorists though was a blast/fragmentation (regular shell to those of you not in the know) shell and decided to use as a roadside bomb oOo: Since the two components that make sarin have to mix in the shell (caused by breakage of a membrane and rotation of shell due to barrel rifling) only a complete moron would blow up a sarin shell before it got mixed up. Therefore they did not know what kind of shell it was.

If they found as much Sarin as you say I would have heard of it by now.


If Bush is intelligent than why can't he piece together a sentence without getting something or other screwed up? If he was smart he also wouldn't have made Donald "all wheeled armor forces" and "fuck the geneva convention" Rumsfeld his SECDEF.

I never fucking said they were shells you dumbfuck. And it was on the news but your head was so far up Kerry's ass that you missed it. And the Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists it applies to uniformed POWs. Sounds to me like your the dumbfuck. And what about Kerry he never says anything that can be messed up in a speech. All he says is Bush is wrong and I can do better. mad:

[quote="Scooter Pie":70f24]I never fucking said they were shells you dumbfuck. And it was on the news but your head was so far up Kerry's ass that you missed it. And the Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists it applies to uniformed POWs. Sounds to me like your the dumbfuck. And what about Kerry he never says anything that can be messed up in a speech. All he says is Bush is wrong and I can do better. mad:[/quote:70f24]

Either way you're an idiot. Captured terrorists are POWs, why wouldn't they be? We're holding them captive, let alone in their own country. We are at war with them and they are fighting against us. Just because they aren't fighting under government legislation doesn't make them non-POWs.

Hey fucktard I said UNIFORMED. That means members of an armed service not some group of sand monkeys. And why the fuck do you care about the rights of terrorists anyway. What about the rights of the 3,000 people in the World Trade Centers or the 500 civilians at the Pentagon. And don't give me that crap about prisoner rights is a slippery slope. imwithstupid:

I also submit that SS soldiers caught in American uniforms during the Battle of the Bulge were lined up against a wall and shot because that is a violation of the Geneva Convention.

This is a waste of time anyway, there's not going to be an election this coming November.

Wtf are you talking about?

PS
That website is so full of shit that it begs to be destroyed.

[quote="Scooter Pie":a8a55]

PS
That website is so full of shit that it begs to be destroyed.[/quote:a8a55]

Full of shit? Please explain.

It's a bunch of lies and crackpot conspiracy theories. There isn't one iota of truth on it. It should be http://www.whatdidntreallyhappen.net mad:

Send a PM to discuss his sig, for fuck sakes. Stay on topic.

It was just a PS besides almost no one else is looking at this thread.

what it comes down to is this: Kerry has nothing new to bring to the table besides seeking UN assistance, the same UN that has Quaddafi as the Chair of the Humans Rights Commission of the UN, you may have seen Quadaffi in such roles as Despot of Libya who has a dreadful track record with human rights. trust the UN to do anything of importance in this world? hardly.

I don't think any self-respecting individual can call themselves pro-war and this includes Bush. Let me give another definition since this thread is prone to giving them.

dé·tente ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-tänt, -tät)
n.
1. A relaxing or easing, as of tension between rivals.
2. A policy toward a rival nation or bloc characterized by increased diplomatic, commercial, and cultural contact and a desire to reduce tensions, as through negotiation or talks.

let me expand the definition:

detente as the liberal mind sees it: backing down against those who threaten the free world in order to gain a shaky sort of peace, have you hugged your favorite dictator today?

detente as fascism/communism/terrorism sees it: weakness which gives a free pass to do what you need to do to gain more power: ie stealing czechoslovakia in the case of hitler and we know how detente worked there/ 2 decades of touting communist ideals to the rest of the world while keeping the iron boot on the neck of the people they had just "saved" in the case of Soviet Russia/ blowing up a car in the middle of a crowd of people in the case of terrorism.

its a delusion to think that in this day and age, detente can work in bringing peace to this world but is still the main method the left in this country and countries all over the world still scream whenever a shot is fired by the US. war never solves anything except: ending slavery, destroying fascism, and defeating communism. I will vote for Bush

[quote="Scooter Pie":6c9fd]I never fucking said they were shells you dumbfuck. And it was on the news but your head was so far up Kerry's ass that you missed it. And the Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists it applies to uniformed POWs. Sounds to me like your the dumbfuck. And what about Kerry he never says anything that can be messed up in a speech. All he says is Bush is wrong and I can do better. mad:[/quote:6c9fd]

thanks for starting with the insults,
that shows that you have no real argument.

as gamer kiddies like you would say: gg I win, play again k thx

Whoever thinks Kerry would make a better President than Bush needs to seriously re-consider living.

I should think its the other way around


there's more to what makes a good president than getting the country involved in as big a war as possible.
Do you know that due to this war the National Security Agency will be subject to budget cuts? These guys are supposed to protect us from terrorists and they are cut in favor of a war which has maganed to piss off more potential terrorists and divided us from folks who used to be our allies.

Al Quaeda is alive and well, and throwing money at Iraq isn't helping any.

Bush tough on terrorism? only pre-2003

[quote="Sgt Stryker":3d757]I should think its the other way around


there's more to what makes a good president than getting the country involved in as big a war as possible.
Do you know that due to this war the National Security Agency will be subject to budget cuts? These guys are supposed to protect us from terrorists and they are cut in favor of a war which has maganed to piss off more potential terrorists and divided us from folks who used to be our allies.

Al Quaeda is alive and well, and throwing money at Iraq isn't helping any.

Bush tough on terrorism? only pre-2003[/quote:3d757]
Heh, well said. Iraq was a big mistake before Al Queda was finished off. The whole world and country was united in the Afghan operations, but it all went to shit when we dropped into Iraq. Saddam and Bin Laden were not allies, they dont even like eachother and I dont see any reason why one would think Saddam would fund terrorism because he is not a fanatic muslim and is against a strong religious influence that is brought on by the perversion of Islam (terrorists). I dont see how anyone with at least half a brain could stand by and believe all the bs this administration has spewed out to everyone.

Iraq wanted to produce the weapons and Al Queda wanted to use them, seems like simple math to me that they would easily unite under the banner to wipe out the great Satan US...just because what the Bush admin has said is unbelievable to you doesn't mean they're lying, maybe it means youre in denial about the fact that evil does exist.

hypothetical situation: bush is lying, lets elect kerry and then the UN will help protect us against future terrorist attacks. how safe do you feel then? scares the skittles outta me.

im sick of these picking between lesser evil elections, who is with me in a social revolution??

Hey I dont want Kerry to win either, I think both parties have really bad leadership right now and they dont know how to fix it. Center stage is the war and behind it is the war on terror because they are two seperate things. Saddam and Bin Laden are not an item, they arent helping eachother out. Yes they both hate the US but they both hate eachother and I havent seen any evidence that suggests the two were cooperating with eachother. I think both were evil, both should have been take care of, but I think Saddam is a small time punkass and should have been dealt with 10 years ago or in this case, after Bin Laden is dead, Al Queda is gone, the Taliban is destroyed and after we set up some kind of international cooperation and pressure on Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Africa and Southeast Asia.

[quote="Old Reliable":f0909]im sick of these picking between lesser evil elections, who is with me in a social revolution??[/quote:f0909]
Social revolution, I dont know about that? But until we get some good leadership, picking the lesser of two evils is all we got.

[quote="Old Reliable":f0909]im sick of these picking between lesser evil elections, who is with me in a social revolution??[/quote:f0909]


ohh fuck ya





RALPH NANDER FOR PRESIDENT 2004 !!!!

N-A-D-E-R biggrin:

no im talking socialist revolution

[quote="Old Reliable":94231]no im talking socialist revolution[/quote:94231]
splain por favor.

it would never work in the USA, i have just been studying too much latin american politics and their socialist revolutions. chile is an exception when salvador allende was the first socialist elected to office in 1970. anythings better than those two douchebags bush and kerry

proletariansin in all countries, UNITE!!!

true socialism hasnt been applied anywhere, and given the chance, probably wouldn't work. communism with the exceptions of cuba and china is dead. capitalism works because of the incentive to work hard and reap the benefits. as all of us know as we sit in front of our expensive computers which become obsolete as fast as they make them which leads to upgrades: greed is universal

nader's a tool

Ofcourse we need capitalism, without them we would have workers. Just not in the current extent.

I think you've got it a little backwards, socialism has been applied with some degrees in most nations (even the US has some socialist-style programs, like welfare).
Communism NEVER REALLY EXISTED except in theory, the theory was that you work according to your abilities (to the best thereof) and you get goods and services according to your needs. Ask anyone who came over here from the USSR; they'll tell you that the politburo members were the only ones who got anything according to their needs. Whatever system the USSR and other "communist" countries had; it was not communism. Communism cannot exist due to basic economic principles and the fact that humans are inherently lazy and greedy.

i stand corrected

[quote="Sgt Stryker":2f607]I think you've got it a little backwards, socialism has been applied with some degrees in most nations (even the US has some socialist-style programs, like welfare).
Communism NEVER REALLY EXISTED except in theory, the theory was that you work according to your abilities (to the best thereof) and you get goods and services according to your needs. Ask anyone who came over here from the USSR; they'll tell you that the politburo members were the only ones who got anything according to their needs. Whatever system the USSR and other "communist" countries had; it was not communism. Communism cannot exist due to basic economic principles and the fact that humans are inherently lazy and greedy.[/quote:2f607]

Its a shame the human nature has gone that way.

well, another factor why it never was communism is that the communism have, before it becomes a communistic goverment, a trasition period with a dictator. most of the communistic revolutions never got out of it. Stalin and Lenin were therefor basically dictators, and therefor it wasnt communism.

[quote=Kemikalie]Its a shame the human nature has gone that way.

well, another factor why it never was communism is that the communism have, before it becomes a communistic goverment, a trasition period with a dictator. most of the communistic revolutions never got out of it. Stalin and Lenin were therefor basically dictators, and therefor it wasnt communism.[/quote:fcc89]

Hey, you got it all in there, lol.
Communism can never be flawless and work as it should as long as the human has its own thoughts and opinions.
Hence, communism is nothing but an utopia.

I can't stand any of these political threads anymore. All people do is point out the bad stuff the opposing canidate did instead of good. AA.com members and politics do not mix.

Why does everyone keep saying the French are "our best allies"? Right after WWII de Gaulle tried to saturate the gold market to bankrupt the US. That sounds real friendly to me. Yeah let's hand over defense of our country to the UN who has Iran on its security council. Hey if you can't trust Iran who can you trust? Stryker face it you need to go remove yourself from the gene pool before you breed and bring one more fool into this world. "I've achieved peace in our time." That's what Neville Chamberlain said after giving Hitler Chezslovokia. Appeasment doesn't work. Besides the US did not start this war the terrorists did when the attacked the World Trade Center the first time (1993). I don't tell me I have no argument Stryker just because you don't. I haven't seen one quote or shred of evidence supporting your claim.