You've got to be fucking kidding me 2 ...

Is it just me, or is it very difficult to pinpoint exactly how much of what comes out of Dubya's mouth he is actually personally responsible for? Or is it widely acknowledged that this is all coming from whoever's pulling strings in the background
 
You know, as liberal as I am... American genocide is starting to look pretty favourable the way your country is going these days :loco:


not that Canada's setting a shining example with all the sponsorship scandals and stuff
 
my vote for the puppetmaster:
ANR2.jpg


as for here, the Republicans are being sucked into the Abramoff vortex...I think they'll definitely lose some seats in this year's election, and when the indictments are handed down, the Democrats will pick up even more in 2008.

and now Senator Santorum R-PA is being exposed for the fraud he is...awesome.
 
I think it might be time for me to stop not being interested in politics. Not sure. The options presented to me aren't very favourable, so it's hard to motivate myself to vote or anything.
 
Demilich said:
if a veto can be overriden, how the hell is it a veto? isn't the point of a veto to override everything else? :confused:

Thats part of the "balance of power." If congress had no way of checking the presidents veto power, whats to stop him from abusing said power?
 
sounds like a see-saw of utterly useless democratic garbage that just draws out everything and allows back-and-forth bullshit within government to take place
 
Demilich said:
sounds like a see-saw of utterly useless democratic garbage that just draws out everything and allows back-and-forth bullshit within government to take place

It can be, but then again, do you think not giving the congress the power to overide someone like Bush is a good idea ?
 
Wtf? There is absolutly nothing wrong with that entire article.


Making the Middle East are pals...is bad? Isn't that the WHOLE ENTIRE POINT of this war thingy? Taking out a "bad" guy, putting in a "good" goverment, then assimilating them into "normal" western relations?
 
i don't think there's really anything wrong with allowing a UAE-based company to control security, nothing more wrong than allowing a brit company to do so anyway

if it were a saudi company i probably wouldn't be saying the same thing though...for the same reasons i wouldn't like a chinese company, or an indonesian company, or a sudanese company, i.e. these are regimes whose economies we should not be supporting. but the rationale of "they're arab, they must be bad" is exactly the kind of mentality that is just straight up gonna lead to a war; *us* versus *them*.
 
lizard said:
I'm referring specifically to the shit government that owns the country, not the ethnicity of the common citizens. even if they are brown.
as opposed to the shit governments that own every country? ;)

gimme an article or something talking about how allowing a company from the UAE to run security specifically threatens our national security and i'll change my tune. remember, of course, that a) it's a private firm and b) it's not like they'll be calling the shots...it's not as though we're giving the UAE the keys to the gate, so to speak.
 
God damn this thread is boring!

I'll just say this. I had a friend that flunked or dropped out of college biology like 8 times. Yet he got A's in his political science classes. Politics can only be exciting to morons . . . and alcoholics. Cause my friend drank WAY too much.:lol:

I feel I've now made this thread a little bit worse. Mission accomplished!