Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Takvah

  1. No, that is an inaccuracy. Police are expected to carry their weapons at all times. I know, my father was a NYC cop. He had that thing on him all the time.

    Now, let's just say that America was a WAR ZONE, like Iraq is. Would they go anywhere without their weapons? Now remember there are people out there that have KILLED many Iraqi security police and have shown that they will KILL any Iraqis that support the American military. Your correction is just a reckless suggestion that seeks to bolster the acceptance of STUPIDITY on the part of people involved in this conflict.

  2. I didn't say Kerry was a conservative... but I happen to believe that there is no way in hell that he could be more RADICAL than this President.

    Kalshion please investigate why there were votes made against the $87 billion and further why Kerry supported the PRESIDENT'S RIGHT TO MAINTAIN THE POWER TO ACT (that did not say, GO AND DO IT). I love how everything Bush says can be parced but Kerry, he has to be black and white. "I don't know that we can win the war on terror." ACCEPTABLE. "I would like to see terrorism become a nuisance event," UNACCEPTABLE. Both are saying reasonable things and basically the SAME thing... but hey let's hop on it.

    Dick Cheney asked for massive cuts to the military... Ashcroft asked for cuts to intel and focused on INTERNET PORN. Come the hell on people get with the program. Condi BRIEFED THE PRESIDENT ON THREATS OF ATTACKS BY HIJACKING PLANES AND THEY DIDN'T ACT. Is that LIBERAL TO SAY? It's just accurate.

  3. ROFLMAO. No Bin Laden didn't want us to attack Muslim nations. ROFLMAO. Why would he want us to do a thing like that and further elevate muslim hatred by giving people in that region a legitimate reason to be pissed?

    Meanwhile the ferocity of our attacks is a myth. There was no furious offensive against Osama Bin Laden. The guy still walks this EARTH. We have reports from TROOPS that were in Afghanistan that said that when we had Bin Laden cornered we called in Afghan Warlords and the Pakistanis to finish the job at Torra Bora. They failed and indirectly we failed because we relied on these clowns.

    Now in Iraq fifty guys that were trained by us to protect and defend their country are found DEAD, with bulletholes in their heads. What are the only UNARMED PEOPLE IN IRAQ the poor bastards we train as security forces?! Jesus Christ... tinfoil beanies... THAT'S THE BEST YOU CAN COME UP WITH? This war on terror is a JOKE and a huge disgrace to this nation. PERIOD THE END.

    READ THE FACTS ABOUT HOW BIN LADEN ESCAPED.. GET EDUCATED. We were so ferocious that we employed easily bribed Afghans to do the fighting on the ground. So inept were we that Osama WALKED out of the fighting!


  4. If troops are being denied their right to vote it is a disgrace. I don't care who they support. Just because people are misguided and support the guy doesn't mean I would advocate ANYBODY (but ESPECIALLY guys on the line out there) being denied their vote. Who the hell are they going to blame this on now? Bush had four years to fix this crap after screaming about it in 2000. If the troops are denied their rights it is HIS cross to bear.

  5. I responded to this thread. My other posts (considering I made two that bashed NOT BUSH BUT THE IDIOCY OF CONSERVATIVES THAT BELIEVE HE IS ONE OF US) had zero to do with this thread.

    Hello... the NY Post... end debate. ROFLMAO... Steve Dunleavy hahah... I just noticed that! Steve Dunleavy used to be a correspondent for Current Affair which spawned such giants as Maury Povich. I thought the guy was dead or perhaps in blissful retirement... nope, still shilling away for his aussie pal Rupert.

  6. This is just more sanity being preached by conservatives. I guess now that the end is near and change within Bush's regime is unlikely honesty is paramount.

    The War Bin Laden Wanted

    The author Paul Schroeder looks at things three dimensionally and I hope some of you might be roused from your slumber by the clarity of his reasoning. We've merrily marched along to Bin Laden's drumming and it has to STOP.


  7. Just because I can I will vote on November 2nd... it's a happening and I'm taking my daughter along as she will be voting in the next Presidential election. Yes, there will be more thoughtful conservatives out there, thank God.

    I am voting for Kerry because I support the troops but I also support a LEGITIMATE war on terror. Chase, kill and DESTROY the viable enemies not the ones that are contained and restrained. Pre-emptive is great... so let's start in Saudi Arabia where all the money and all of the HATRED originates.

    I will vote for Betty Castor for Senate, just because it will help to balance a Congress that has done nothing good or CONSERVATIVE for four years. I will send the wake-up call.

    I am LOUD and I AM PROUD, and I will be voting for John Kerry. All of the charlatans that call themselves CONSERVATIVES that don't like it... well good!


  8. Well as I have been saying... REAL CONSERVATIVES do not have a voice in this administration. It seems that THINKING Republicans and those that are actually conservative agree with me that for the betterment of this nation we need to take one on the chin... suck it up... and vote AGAINST Bush.

    Read it all for yourself... I could not have said it better myself.

    November 8, 2004 issue


    Unfortunately, this election does not offer traditional conservatives an easy or natural choice and has left our editors as split as our readership. In an effort to deepen our readers’ and our own understanding of the options before us, we’ve asked several of our editors and contributors to make “the conservative case” for their favored candidate. Their pieces, plus Taki’s column closing out this issue, constitute TAC’s endorsement. —The Editors

    Kerry’s the One

    By Scott McConnell

    There is little in John Kerry’s persona or platform that appeals to conservatives. The flip-flopper charge—the centerpiece of the Republican campaign against Kerry—seems overdone, as Kerry’s contrasting votes are the sort of baggage any senator of long service is likely to pick up. (Bob Dole could tell you all about it.) But Kerry is plainly a conventional liberal and no candidate for a future edition of Profiles in Courage. In my view, he will always deserve censure for his vote in favor of the Iraq War in 2002.

    But this election is not about John Kerry. If he were to win, his dearth of charisma would likely ensure him a single term. He would face challenges from within his own party and a thwarting of his most expensive initiatives by a Republican Congress. Much of his presidency would be absorbed by trying to clean up the mess left to him in Iraq. He would be constrained by the swollen deficits and a ripe target for the next Republican nominee.

    It is, instead, an election about the presidency of George W. Bush. To the surprise of virtually everyone, Bush has turned into an important president, and in many ways the most radical America has had since the 19th century. Because he is the leader of America’s conservative party, he has become the Left’s perfect foil—its dream candidate. The libertarian writer Lew Rockwell has mischievously noted parallels between Bush and Russia’s last tsar, Nicholas II: both gained office as a result of family connections, both initiated an unnecessary war that shattered their countries’ budgets. Lenin needed the calamitous reign of Nicholas II to create an opening for the Bolsheviks.

    Bush has behaved like a caricature of what a right-wing president is supposed to be, and his continuation in office will discredit any sort of conservatism for generations. The launching of an invasion against a country that posed no threat to the U.S., the doling out of war profits and concessions to politically favored corporations, the financing of the war by ballooning the deficit to be passed on to the nation’s children, the ceaseless drive to cut taxes for those outside the middle class and working poor: it is as if Bush sought to resurrect every false 1960s-era left-wing clich├® about predatory imperialism and turn it into administration policy. Add to this his nation-breaking immigration proposal—Bush has laid out a mad scheme to import immigrants to fill any job where the wage is so low that an American can’t be found to do it—and you have a presidency that combines imperialist Right and open-borders Left in a uniquely noxious cocktail.

    During the campaign, few have paid attention to how much the Bush presidency has degraded the image of the United States in the world. Of course there has always been “anti-Americanism.” After the Second World War many European intellectuals argued for a “Third Way” between American-style capitalism and Soviet communism, and a generation later Europe’s radicals embraced every ragged “anti-imperialist” cause that came along. In South America, defiance of “the Yanqui” always draws a crowd. But Bush has somehow managed to take all these sentiments and turbo-charge them. In Europe and indeed all over the world, he has made the United States despised by people who used to be its friends, by businessmen and the middle classes, by moderate and sensible liberals. Never before have democratic foreign governments needed to demonstrate disdain for Washington to their own electorates in order to survive in office. The poll numbers are shocking. In countries like Norway, Germany, France, and Spain, Bush is liked by about seven percent of the populace. In Egypt, recipient of huge piles of American aid in the past two decades, some 98 percent have an unfavorable view of the United States. It’s the same throughout the Middle East.

    Bush has accomplished this by giving the U.S. a novel foreign-policy doctrine under which it arrogates to itself the right to invade any country it wants if it feels threatened. It is an American version of the Brezhnev Doctrine, but the latter was at least confined to Eastern Europe. If the analogy seems extreme, what is an appropriate comparison when a country manufactures falsehoods about a foreign government, disseminates them widely, and invades the country on the basis of those falsehoods? It is not an action that any American president has ever taken before. It is not something that “good” countries do. It is the main reason that people all over the world who used to consider the United States a reliable and necessary bulwark of world stability now see us as a menace to their own peace and security.

    These sentiments mean that as long as Bush is president, we have no real allies in the world, no friends to help us dig out from the Iraq quagmire. More tragically, they mean that if terrorists succeed in striking at the United States in another 9/11-type attack, many in the world will not only think of the American victims but also of the thousands and thousands of Iraqi civilians killed and maimed by American armed forces. The hatred Bush has generated has helped immeasurably those trying to recruit anti-American terrorists—indeed his policies are the gift to terrorism that keeps on giving, as the sons and brothers of slain Iraqis think how they may eventually take their own revenge. Only the seriously deluded could fail to see that a policy so central to America’s survival as a free country as getting hold of loose nuclear materials and controlling nuclear proliferation requires the willingness of foreign countries to provide full, 100 percent co-operation. Making yourself into the world’s most hated country is not an obvious way to secure that help.

    I’ve heard people who have known George W. Bush for decades and served prominently in his father’s administration say that he could not possibly have conceived of the doctrine of pre-emptive war by himself, that he was essentially taken for a ride by people with a pre-existing agenda to overturn Saddam Hussein. Bush’s public performances plainly show him to be a man who has never read or thought much about foreign policy. So the inevitable questions are: who makes the key foreign-policy decisions in the Bush presidency, who controls the information flow to the president, how are various options are presented?

    The record, from published administration memoirs and in-depth reporting, is one of an administration with a very small group of six or eight real decision-makers, who were set on war from the beginning and who took great pains to shut out arguments from professionals in the CIA and State Department and the U.S. armed forces that contradicted their rosy scenarios about easy victory. Much has been written about the neoconservative hand guiding the Bush presidency—and it is peculiar that one who was fired from the National Security Council in the Reagan administration for suspicion of passing classified material to the Israeli embassy and another who has written position papers for an Israeli Likud Party leader have become key players in the making of American foreign policy.

    But neoconservatism now encompasses much more than Israel-obsessed intellectuals and policy insiders. The Bush foreign policy also surfs on deep currents within the Christian Right, some of which see unqualified support of Israel as part of a godly plan to bring about Armageddon and the future kingdom of Christ. These two strands of Jewish and Christian extremism build on one another in the Bush presidency—and President Bush has given not the slightest indication he would restrain either in a second term. With Colin Powell’s departure from the State Department looming, Bush is more than ever the “neoconian candidate.” The only way Americans will have a presidency in which neoconservatives and the Christian Armageddon set are not holding the reins of power is if Kerry is elected.

    If Kerry wins, this magazine will be in opposition from Inauguration Day forward. But the most important battles will take place within the Republican Party and the conservative movement. A Bush defeat will ignite a huge soul-searching within the rank-and-file of Republicandom: a quest to find out how and where the Bush presidency went wrong. And it is then that more traditional conservatives will have an audience to argue for a conservatism informed by the lessons of history, based in prudence and a sense of continuity with the American past—and to make that case without a powerful White House pulling in the opposite direction.

    George W. Bush has come to embody a politics that is antithetical to almost any kind of thoughtful conservatism. His international policies have been based on the hopelessly na├»ve belief that foreign peoples are eager to be liberated by American armies—a notion more grounded in Leon Trotsky’s concept of global revolution than any sort of conservative statecraft. His immigration policies—temporarily put on hold while he runs for re-election—are just as extreme. A re-elected President Bush would be committed to bringing in millions of low-wage immigrants to do jobs Americans “won’t do.” This election is all about George W. Bush, and those issues are enough to render him unworthy of any conservative support.

    THANK GOD FOR SANITY. THANK GOD SOME OF US GET IT. THANK GOD I AM NOT ALONE. THANK GOD REAL CONSERVATIVES ARE WILLING TO CALL THIS FRAUD OUT. I've been saying it for two years now, I made a mistake... and real MEN can acknowledge that. Thank goodness the American Conservative is also helmed by real men.

  9. Unfortunately, there is never going to be a way to stop this entirely. The internet while manageable just has to many cracks and crevaces to hide in. Someone with a decent knowledge of it can effectively shield themselves from scrutiny. The ability to share things peer to peer is never going to be stopped. The genie as they say is out of the bottle. Even if a game isn't leaked by inside sources as soon as it hits the shelves the hack is being developed and the game is being uploaded to newsgroups etc., worldwide. It sucks but this is a price of doing business when your business can be digitized. Music, literature or games it doesn't matter... it is all in play.

    So the real choices that companies have is limited. They can prosecute and they can litigate. This cost will be passed onto the law-minded rather than those that are actually stealing. They can reduce the costs of their games, music, etc. and offer it over the web making it less attractive to steal it. More than litigation, I think the cheap download services will eventually curb (NOT END) music theft. The songs should have a digital signature that is traceable to the purchaser as well.

    Games are another matter. Perhaps transferring games to players over the internet will be a way to reduce costs and make games less tempting to steal. I bought HL2 over the web (still waiting for the release) and have been playing CS:S. They saved themselves a bit of money on splits with retailers and the production costs of manuals and CDs and I got immediate gratification (sort of). They charge about the same for the download as they do the packaged product which is why I don't see a decrease in cracked versions of CS:S being played. The problem is rampant and has law abiding people miffed (including myself)... however in time a service like Steam used fairly (reduced prices for offering people a license and not the actual product) might be the answer. Especially since your game can also have some kind of imbedded digital signature that is unique to you. If you buy it from a retailer, good luck figuring out who it is that is duplicating and pirating your software. Console games... welp, until they have internet capabilities comprabable to PCs for obtaining content, they're screwed.

    The whole thing is a mess but as internet speeds increase theft is only on the rise. Perhaps using that speed to deliver your product in a few hours time to the consumer while reducing the price in a way that is commensorate with your reduced costs is the answer. I don't know... I'm just some schmuck out here in the forest *snickers*.


  10. LOL yeah Saudi Arabia is really cooperating with us. The reality is that if the Saudi royals appeared to be assisting us in any way they would be overthrown. Their cooperation is a lot of lipservice. Even Giuliani said "no" to their money after 9/11 and NOTHING has changed AT ALL since that time. Bush is an appeaser of the Saudi royals and that's that. He talks the talk but he doesn't walk the walk.

  11. What about that is rhetoric. Thy are using one of Bush's staunchest allies. THIS IS A PRESIDENT THAT IS CONNECTED TO THE DEFENDANTS IN A CASE THAT INVOLVED THE MURDER OF 3000 OF OUR PEOPLE. What about that is rhetoric!? If this was Kerry's attorney that was DEFENDING the Saudis and protecting them from the scrutiny of the American people and the families of people that were MURDERED, you would be screaming bloody murder. At the very least stop pretending it doesn't matter to you... oh wait... if it mattered you'd demand that this guy fully investigate Saudi Arabia and its connections to the hijackers and you would also demand that the 28 pages that were removed from the intelligence report critical of Saudi Arabia be made public. You aren't about seeing justice done or AMERICANS vindicated... you're just about protecting this worm Bush. Well, I'm a real man and willing to say I will not lay BUSH in front of 3000 of my FELLOW COUNTRYMEN.


  12. There are plenty of trial lawyers in the Bush Administration. I suppose James A. Baker III is just some guy? Bush ponied up with the best when he wanted to secure the election and I was very happy to see him choose Baker III. He is a shark. HOWEVER, did you happen to know that James A. Baker III is also representing the Saudis against the 9/11 families? What kind of a guy is this?! The Bush Administration is so interested in the truth that they put their best man on the case FOR THE SAUDIS and against AMERICA. You people that talk about Democrats being the only ones looking to win elections, etc., through the courts are either ill informed or hypocrites. Gore sued over Florida. What was he supposed to do? Was Katherine Harris (the chaiperson of the Bush election committee in Florida and the SECRETARY OF STATE!) cooperating? No.

    I think democracy has been diminished more in the last four years than in the last two hundred years. To suggest that this is a result of Democratic maneuvering is to color yourself STUPID. There is no democracy in Afghanistan or for that matter in Iraq. This administration has taken the people out of the process and has instead shut itself up from criticism (a major necessity in a democracy) while amping up the rhetoric of fear. Look at how crazed they have some of you. It's a shame but it's necessary in order to get you all to bend over and TAKE IT. Well you take it alright and you like it... I however, do not. And I am sickened that the war on terror IGNORES our most venomous adversaries THE SAUDIS. How can any of you say that Bush is interested in PROTECTING US when he ignores the fact that our REAL ENEMIES are some of his BEST FRIENDS. You people should be ashamed.

  13. Jaguar-

    FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS REGULATED. I cannot wish ill of the President. I cannot shout fire in a crowded theater. I cannot publish wholesale lies about people. The list could go on and on. We are not free to say whatever we like.

    You might not like that I would have people that have assault weapons registered as US militia but I have my opinion and that's it. If we are going to LEGITIMIZE the purposes of these weapons and finally come clean on it RATHER THAN continuing to couch it behind all kinds of whacky NRA arguments... GREAT. What the gun companies and lobbies don't have the balls to say is what you said Jaguar, "we fear the government". It is a legitimate argument especially given the guy in the White House. The first instance I have ever had to fear that martial law was a very real possibility, Bush was President.


  14. First of all I tip my hat to Kerry, another great debate from a guy that was on the ropes three weeks ago. Bush looked to be sedated and the spittle in the corner of his mouth looked really attractive. Wonder if the meds gave him cottonmouth.

    As for the assault weapons ban I support it. If the NRA and the rest of the people in power are willing to admit that these things are NOT for hunting, I will reconsider it... along with a process of registering them and the people that have them into some kind of militia database. You people say that we need to be able to purchase these things to protect ourselves from the threats that will be entering this country. I AGREE. However I believe that law enforcement should have ready access to a database that shows your name and your registered assault weapons should they get a call from/about your house. Also, if we are going to say that the American people should be an armed militia then we should have an ORGANIZED militia meaning that you should be properly licensed as IN YOU KNOW HOW TO USE THE THING. Now, I know people will scream about these infringements on our freedoms but the right to bear and keep arms was for the intent of PROTECTING the country. If this is the reasoning for keeping these things then I'm again, all for it. What pisses me off is when idiots need to keep these things so that they can feel like a man.

    Nuff said.

  15. I know this will sound like I'm giving ground but I can respect you holding your nose and pulling the lever Jag. What I will always fight with you about is when you criticize others for making a similar choice and it not being the guy you're going for.

    I am a Republican I just don't see any up there to vote for and Bush's agenda isn't mine... so I need to vote Kerry just to see that agenda stopped.

    As for the addresses it is poor form to publish them and I hope that Street will retract that post. Whether we love or hate one another one thing remains, like it or not we're Americans. Even if our politics differs there is one thing we share and that is that for all the warts this is the greatest country on the planet (apologies in advance to our international forum community).


  16. Jaguar, people were blown up in Israel and Egypt today. Now, is that a product of Saddam Hussein's support of terrorism or is that the product of warfare being waged between Israel and the Palestinians? I am no more willing to say that Bush is responsible for the people that died this morning than I am that Hussein is responsible for the terror in Israel. Do you really believe that Hussein was a catalyst for terror in Israel and that without Hussein, Palestinians would not be willing to blow themselves up? Your reasoning is just so far off the mark that it's almost perverse. Saddam Hussein is no greater a contributor to global terrorism than the Saudi royal family is. How many of the people involved in 9/11 were Iraqi? How many were Saudi? What nationality is Osama Bin Laden? What nation is the chief monetary supporter of wholesale terror on a global scale? If you said Saudi Arabia, you get a star. So then why the hell is Bush not rebuking them? Why is Prince Bandar referred to as Bandar Bush? Why aren't these guys being held to the same standards? WE SHOULD HAVE INVADED SAUDI ARABIA before we invaded Iraq. We contained Iraq and could have dealt with them at our leisure. It is the Saudis that we should be turning the screws on right now. At the very least it seems that Sudi Arabia harbors some of the most fanatical anti-American sentiment in the world; so if you REALLY want to kill our enemies, we better start there.


  17. Jaguar, you keep saying my guys had fifty years to straighten out this country. Well my guys are the Republicans, the REAL Republicans. The guys that were about freedom and responsibility. You know the Teddy Roosevelt types, the McCain type (when he isn't selling his soul at a convention). There are a few of them left in the party. Now let's look at your statement about Deomocrats being in power for fifty years. I'm sorry that's not accurate. The Congress has been more often than not, in the control of the Republicans for the past ten years. For the past four years the Republicans have been in charge (for the most part) of all branches of the government. In my lifetime Presidents have gone as follows: Nixon ®, Ford® (really doesn't count), Carter (D), Reagan ®, Bush ®, Clinton (D) and Bush ®. Are you noticing anything there Jaguar? In my thirty four years of life twelve of them have been under a Democratic President. So please, spare me this whole, "It's our turn!" argument. I loved Reagan and G. H. W. Bush, (eventhough now I understand that he also screwed the pooch just like Junior). When will you hold accountable those in power? How long do the Republicans have to be in power before you finally say, "OK, we're responsible for X, Y, or Z?" Politicians are scumbags and I don't hold any of them in any regard, good or bad, for the simple fact that they have and R or a D after their name. What matters is what they do with their power once they have it. I usually find myself more aligned with Republicans than I do Democrats but in this case Bush has failed this country. So, now it's time for him go back to civilian life.

  18. Oh I'm sorry that wasn't an attack that was a bit of advice.

    Complain away if you must.

    As for reading your post, I admit I could not stand to read the whole thing. When you started to preach about researching, while butchering the English language, I just had to scroll down.

    By the way, I was able to stomach a little more of your post and you're also wrong about Jaguar and your assertion that he must consider many sources. There is absolutely no way that he could be informed on the counter argument and support this President so fervently. I've been a flag waving Republican since I was ten years old. That's when Reagan beat the snot out of that panzy Carter (ah, good times). Even I, cannot justify the lunacy of this President. No true patriot could in good conscience or stead support the disjointed muddlings of this administration. No patriot could support the use of this nation's might in such a way as Bush has thus far. What he did is akin to breaking off a chase involving a serial killer so that he could write a speeding ticket. If that's alright with you so be it. I for one won't allow POLITICS to blur the real issue. Bush and his policies have been horribly misguided and it's time for the people to rise up and demand a change.


  • Create New...