Is Bush really serious?!

[Ayeka]

It is sooooooo hard to have sit through so many downright confrontational leftist points of view over and over and over again.

Oh aye, that's kinda cute! I've been told I'm a Nazi for so long I gave up and decided to believe it

"Bush sucks, Bush is a terrorist, it doesn't matter who we have in the presidency as long as it's not that Bush guy!!!!" You still have the freedom to voice your thoughts and opinions, and voice them you do.

And by golly we should excercise that ability to critiscise too. I'm sure governments would love mindless confirmity so they push their work that goes against the interests of the people (for example, illegal war on your side of the ocean, endless floods of asylum seekers on mine - just to go for the obvious ones). You don't have to listen if you don't want (freedom of choice again) but sometimes it might pay if you do, y'know...

You still have the freedom to eat, think, dress, love, work, travel, spend, worship any way you freaking want!

Unless you're gay

If you don't think that Saddam Hussein was a threat to anyone but the Iraqi people, then you really are blind. The world changed after 9/11 like it or not. The U.S. administration decided it was in the best interest of the country take a pre-emptive role in combating those governments (so far Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya) that are not just dictatorships, but that harbor and support terroist cells and are supportive of those that are a true threat to the innocent people of the free world.

So how come the motive changed for War On Terror to non-existant WMDs?

 

[J.]

You still have the freedom to voice your thoughts and opinions, and voice them you do.

Of course. But if we were to do so in public while Bush was giving a speech, we'd be labelled as un-American or unpatriotic. But that's assuming our voice would even be heard since protesters are now basically told to protest in a sound proof room. The authorities basically say: "Protest all you want as long as you don't leave this protest zone. There's your freedom of speech."

I thought the entire country was a protest zone...?? We are still in America, aren't we?

Like I said before, it's ironic that a country founded by protest has now essentially outlawed it. Isn't democracy about questioning authority?

Allow me to quote BoySetsFire: "Protest is Patriotism"

 

[Demonspell]

I also doubt that 9/11 could have been prevented, but Bush does deserve to be chastised for failing to pay close attention to his own briefing papers. We shouldn't also overlook the fact that the intelligence agencies were consumed with the Clinton fiasco when they could have been examining terrorist activity more closely. And I am also disgusted with the government's attempts to undermine protests, as well as the complacency of our people towards such measures. Questioning authority is an essential part of being a responsible citizen.

 

[MadeInNewJersey]

"i've got money, so it doesn't matter how much i fuck up the environment and waste precious fossil fuels!"

people don't seem to realize that, at the rate we are going, we will have exhausted all the world's oil and gas in 30-some years...

Not for nothing, but this is the biggest myth out there.

 

[MadeInNewJersey]

Of course. But if we were to do so in public while Bush was giving a speech, we'd be labelled as un-American or unpatriotic. But that's assuming our voice would even be heard since protesters are now basically told to protest in a sound proof room. The authorities basically say: "Protest all you want as long as you don't leave this protest zone. There's your freedom of speech."

I thought the entire country was a protest zone...?? We are still in America, aren't we?

Like I said before, it's ironic that a country founded by protest has now essentially outlawed it. Isn't democracy about questioning authority?

Allow me to quote BoySetsFire: "Protest is Patriotism"

I don't know Jeff, I've seen countless anti-war rallies, marches and whatever all over the tri-state area and NYC, moreso in the past few months as public support for the war in Iraq wanes. They're allowed to do whatever they want it seems, provided they don't purposefully try to tie up traffic/cause gridlock, or become confrontational and violent. I don't see what the big deal is; I think in fact there as been MORE public opinion voiced during the Bush years than in recent memory. Of course, there's probably more to pubically bitch about, but that's another story...

 

[Black Winter Day]

http://plaza.ufl.edu/joshgo/fossil.html

http://www.energyquest.ca.gov/ask_quester/answers_fossil_fuels.html

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/1999/ph161/l11.html

this one is sort of funny... teh Green School, hahaha--> http://www.thegreenschool.fsnet.co.uk/Fossil%20Fuels/FossilFuelsPg2.htm

 

[MadeInNewJersey]

I also doubt that 9/11 could have been prevented, but Bush does deserve to be chastised for failing to pay close attention to his own briefing papers. We shouldn't also overlook the fact that the intelligence agencies were consumed with the Clinton fiasco when they could have been examining terrorist activity more closely.

This is worth mentioning simply because the liberal-minded who are the first to step forth and bash Bush/Republicans methods of eradicating terrorism are the very same who so staunchly supported the Clinton years.

I ask: during whose 8-year tenure did the seedlings of Al-Qaeda (and what will pretty much be known as the "golden age" of terrorism) take root and become seriously organized and forceful? If Clinton wasn't so busy with other, "more important" matters, he might not have FUBAR'd our involvement in international states. France, Germany, et al didn't simply come to disagree and outright loathe in some cases, the USA overnight you know. The Clinton administration had numerous intelligence data to potentially quell Al-Qaeda and bin Laden before his organization grew as fast and widespread as it has. I'm not saying there might not have been another to take its place, but let's be serious here people.

 

[MadeInNewJersey]

BWD: Note: This is based on know reserves and estimates which are not very certain.

The "Professor Questor" article/Q&A is (c) the California Energy Commission. Gee, what point are THEY trying to put across?

The study from Oregon is pretty good-looking, but still, just one person's opinion (i.e. from one study) that is making a great deal of assumption. There is still much that's not known (i.e. world reserves, new deposit locations, etc.). Besides, this also doesn't take into effect technology and scientific advancement.

I know you will laugh, but take the auto industry for an example. 10 years ago, no one paid any attention to this sort of thing. Cars burned egregious amounts of oil and people simply didn't care. Now the manufacturers have been dictated to by government (yep, that very same goverment that everyone likes to complain about) to work on conserving resources. So more than a handful of major manufacturers have been releasing newer, more modern engines that produce significantly higher horsepower and engine torque, yet use almost half the gas/oil that their ancestors did.

There's a lot left to be discovered, even if the naysayers are correct about the amount of resources left to us.

Always check the source. It's the number one rule of opinion-making. Unless it's my opinion, in which case you automatically know I'm right.

 

[Black Winter Day]

 

[MadeInNewJersey]

When in doubt, post funny pictures!

 

[Black Winter Day]

BWD: Note: This is based on know reserves and estimates which are not very certain.

yeah dude, but when literally THOUSANDS of scientists are telling us to conserve, conserve, conserve and all of them are making similar projections, how can one not step up and notice the possible validity of such claims. i got these links from doing a simple google search on "fossil fuels rate" and sent you the first four good links. we will HAVE to use new technology (i.e. electric cars) in order to combat this. and it all starts with the auto companies.

 

[Black Winter Day]

When in doubt, post funny pictures!

hey, it's not my fault i posted it the same split-second you posted yours!

 

[Black Winter Day]

and please note that i did respond to your schenenigans, but the new page came along and fucked everything up.

 

[NAD]

I ask: during whose 8-year tenure did the seedlings of Al-Qaeda (and what will pretty much be known as the "golden age" of terrorism) take root and become seriously organized and forceful? If Clinton wasn't so busy with other, "more important" matters, he might not have FUBAR'd our involvement in international states. France, Germany, et al didn't simply come to disagree and outright loathe in some cases, the USA overnight you know. The Clinton administration had numerous intelligence data to potentially quell Al-Qaeda and bin Laden before his organization grew as fast and widespread as it has. I'm not saying there might not have been another to take its place, but let's be serious here people.

If you're going to bring this up, you have to make mention of the US funding Osama in Ashcanistan in the early 80s to combat the Soviets.

FUBAR, haha. I fucking love that term.

 

[MadeInNewJersey]

NAD, I have no problem bringing that up either, it only serves to FURTHER support my point. Which is that anyone who still blames the CURRENT REGIME for problems that have far outlasted that regime is fucking bonkers.

Here's some more food for thought: how many people here knew that Kerry voted YES to using deadly force to attack Iraq?

 

[NAD]

Oh yeah, there's no way I can blame Bush for the current state of terrorism. Rather, pre-9/11 (up to and including) terrorism. Whether his globe trotting has caused a more violatile situation is plenty debatable though.

Damn near everyone voted yes to use force against Iraq. Only some of the fringe Congressmen didn't if I'm not mistaken.

 

[MadeInNewJersey]

It was something like 42 congressmen and 49 senators. Makes you wonder. Did they vote just based on a staunch belief in the Presidency? Or did they actually do their own research and still vote yes? Either way, each one is to blame just as much, which makes Kerry just as much of a moron in my eyes. And thus, my original point. Change for change's sake isn't always a good thing.

 

[NAD]

I'll go with that. But an entire policy based on invading Iraq is a far cry from giving a vote for the go ahead. Throwing rocks at a school bus vs. a rocket launcher.

 

[Dark One]

And by golly we should excercise that ability to critiscise too. I'm sure governments would love mindless confirmity so they push their work that goes against the interests of the people (for example, illegal war on your side of the ocean, endless floods of asylum seekers on mine - just to go for the obvious ones). You don't have to listen if you don't want (freedom of choice again) but sometimes it might pay if you do, y'know...

You missed my point. I'm not talking about not having a right to criticize, I'm talking about going overboard and criticizing so incessantly and filled with such contrary anti-regime sentiment that it becomes criticizing just for the sake of criticisizing. Criticizing to the point where it doesn't matter what someone does, they will be criticized for it. That type of negativity is so counter productive and is soooooooooooo what is wrong with our political system.

 

[Papa Josh]

If you're going to bring this up, you have to make mention of the US funding Osama in Ashcanistan in the early 80s to combat the Soviets.

Well, I must be "bonkers" because I would delve a bit further and go as far as to say that the current regime has known alot more about Al Qaeda than they want the public to believe. I think the grand idiot's slip up on his speech last night, the one where he went back and corrected himself about when he knew about Al-Qaeda's involvement in 9/11.

The fact that he and Cheney won't appear alone as requested by the committee, but together, should be enough to give people a red flag. Cheney's running the show folks, ol' stool pigeon is just the face.

We've been bamboozled and hoodwinked by this administration from Florida 2000 to our current loss of more and more of our soldiers on a weekly basis in Iraq. And for what? No weapons of Mass Destruction, no evidence of nuclear weapons, this is like a BAD POLICE SEARCH people. Not admissable in a court of law, etc., etc.

Not to mention we're buddies with a country that fostered and funded 19 terrorists that executed 9/11. With how much help, from whom, the world will never know..

But American dollars were involved.