Lotharr Posted October 17, 2002 Report Posted October 17, 2002 Hee hee.... " Spoiled Rancid By Barry Crimmins http://www.barrycrimmins.com There are spoiled brats and then there is Court-appointed President Bush, a child of privilege so spoiled he's rancid. As such, he'll go to any measure to get what he wants. After all, once youÔÇÖve been allowed to be president without benefit of election, why shouldnÔÇÖt you expect your every whim to be fulfilled? To listen to Dubyahoo is akin being stuck in a car (err, SUV) on a long trip with an impatient child with an agenda. It's hot and cramped and he just won't let up. What he wants on this trip is war. So instead of a thoughtful debate on the issue of whether or not the United States should go kill a lot of people, all we get is a tantrum in drag as a sensible call to arms. Unfortunately, itÔÇÖs working. What follows is a summary of the arguments our office-taker-in-chief has proffered in his preemptive assault on anything remotely resembling a thoughtful foreign policy: ÔÇó I wanna invade Iraq. I WANNA! I WANNA ! I WANNA ! I WANNA ! I WANNA INVADE IRAQ!! ÔÇó Support an attack of Iraq or I'll question your patriotism. ÔÇó If you don't let me invade soon I'm gonna have Cheney give more speeches! ÔÇó Either we invade Iraq or I'll imply that you were in favor of the 9-11 massacres. ÔÇó Invade Iraq or IÔÇÖll claim you are in league with the foreign devils from places like France, Germany and Canada who oppose a military assault on SaddamÔÇÖs subjects. ÔÇó Let me invade Iraq or IÔÇÖll announce that you are not supportive of ÔÇ£our brave American men and women in the armed services.ÔÇØ After all, you aren't a patriot unless you want to commit our troops to what could become a drawn out war followed by an intractable occupation. Even if the invasion seems quick and easy, it will still require our troops to commit, or at least witness, horrific acts. This will cause them to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. But don't worry; IÔÇÖll make sure itÔÇÖs unpatriotic to support them when they return to the U.S.A. Just let me make them into veterans and like my dad, I'll undercut their benefits before they return home. Remember, only pinkos believe in Gulf War Syndrome. ÔÇó Invade Iraq or IÔÇÖll tell everyone youÔÇÖre in favor of SaddamÔÇÖs use of chemical weapons on his own people. I won't mention how an earlier Republican administration gave Iraq Iranian troop coordinates so that Saddam could gas them. That would upset Poppy. ÔÇó If you don't let me attack, IÔÇÖll give a speech implying youÔÇÖre in favor of weapons of mass destruction. I'll have Karl RoveÔÇÖs art people work up big mushroom clouds with your faces on them. And with Saddam, I consider anything stronger than a whoopee cushion to be a weapon of mass destruction. ÔÇó Help me invade Iraq and endorse the wholesale massacre of the Iraqi people or IÔÇÖll say that youÔÇÖre in favor of the brutalization of the Iraqi people. You must let me liberate these good people through the use of strategic carpet-bombing or their fate will be on your heads! ÔÇó Come on, let me invade Iraq and light a powder keg in the ammo dump that is the Middle East or IÔÇÖll imply that you don't care about the safety of the Israeli people. And that will prove that youÔÇÖre anti-Semitic. ÔÇó Let me invade Iraq but never mention the fact that Cheney and I are oilmen with dreams of the corporate recolonization of that country and the worldÔÇÖs second largest oil reserve it sits upon. One peep about that and IÔÇÖll declare you an ÔÇ£enemy combatantÔÇØ and youÔÇÖll be on your way to Guantanamo. ÔÇó We must attack Iraq so that the oil flows freely (at least to Western oil interests). That way Americans can continue to guzzle gas at a rate that will expedite the poisoning of the archenemy of the Court-appointed Bush Administration -- the environment. ÔÇó We must attack Iraq so that there can be a regime change (Instructions for changing a regime: take hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, snuff quickly, then act sanctimonious) ÔÇó We have to invade Iraq or the American people will have time to consider issues that are improper for them to look into, such as: the court-appointed Bush Administration's negligence, or worse, leading up to 9/11; my dismal failure to keep my promise to bring last yearÔÇÖs Public Enemy # 1, Osama bin Laden, to justice; the wholesale and cynical exploitation of 9/11 to promote un-American police state tactics; the collapse of the US economy during my watch; or the catacombs of corporate corruption that are burgeoning beneath the White House. In short, we mustn't let the fall elections include any discourse on issues that would suggest to any working person that it is insane to vote for people who hate them and never have their best interests at heart. In other words, the Republican Party. ÔÇó And finally and most importantly: I wanna, I wanna, I WANNA! WAAAAAAAAAAAH!! I WANNA INVADE IRAQ!!! Thus ends the summary of George W. BushÔÇÖs recent, repeated comments from the BullyÔÇÖs Pulpit. Give him credit, he's wearing us down despite the fact it would be cheaper to simply misallocate our governmentÔÇÖs resources for a military attack on American working communities. Why waste the money halfway around the globe when itÔÇÖs simpler to cut out the middle madman and just invade the United States? WeÔÇÖd get the same long-range results, only sooner. In fact, IÔÇÖm going to start the campaign right now: Can we pleeeeez invade the United States? I WANNA! I WANNA! I WANNA! WAAAAAAAAAAAAH!! ┬®2002 Barry Crimmins "
Lotharr Posted October 17, 2002 Report Posted October 17, 2002 The stuff i brought in wasn't as funny as what $ilk wrote but it was still good....
Guest Posted October 17, 2002 Report Posted October 17, 2002 Barry is another clueless liberal who is still pissed that Gore couldn't steal the election. What Gore did was ILLEGAL, and deserved to get slammed, what the Florida Supreme court did was ILLEGAL and again, deserved to get slammed. To legislate from the bench is such crass politics that it is insane. Barry is a crybaby who is still crying, well, he better thank god that Bush is president, because Gore would have us kneeling and praying to Mecca by now.
Raven Posted October 17, 2002 Report Posted October 17, 2002 ItÔÇÖs not all that funny truth be told. Of course, maybe some of the humor comes from looking at it from a liberal point of view, I donÔÇÖt know.
AWells Posted October 18, 2002 Report Posted October 18, 2002 quote:Invade Iraq or IÔÇÖll claim you are in league with the foreign devils from places like France, Germany and Canada who oppose a military assault on SaddamÔÇÖs subjects.Speaking of that, who's up for Canada next? Talk about an oppressive regime, have you seen the prices the poor citizens of our northern neighbor have to pay for cigarettes? We need affirmitive military action in Canada in order to secure rights to lung cancer for all! [ 10-17-2002, 08:04 PM: Message edited by: Litvyak ]
Raven Posted October 18, 2002 Report Posted October 18, 2002 I agree, we need to invade Canada. Besides, it would be really easy, no military to speak of and the citizens are unarmed, so itÔÇÖs not like there would be a downside.
Charles Lindsey Posted October 18, 2002 Report Posted October 18, 2002 Do we really want a 51st state? I mean where would you put the star?
Lotharr Posted October 18, 2002 Report Posted October 18, 2002 It has got to be hard for you Jag...the guy your pulling for is hated by so many foreign and domestic it's not even funny....plus under his watch, corporate America has raped and pillaged better then any Viking I ever heard of leaving us with a broken and thoroughly ravaged economy.....all the while rolling back our civil liberties.... Even you have to be asking yourself it is worth it....that is if you claim to care about the Constitution or the idea of an open society..... You said you were part of a unique party....is that party ever willing to say enough is enough?
Lotharr Posted October 18, 2002 Report Posted October 18, 2002 quote: Gore couldn't steal the election Can you explain that.
AWells Posted October 18, 2002 Report Posted October 18, 2002 quote: Do we really want a 51st state? I mean where would you put the star? Canada doesn't need to become a state... we'll just make it a territory. We can rename it to the Occupied Northern Landfill. All those miles of wilderness make a perfect site to get rid of the waste products from our standard of living.
Charles Lindsey Posted October 18, 2002 Report Posted October 18, 2002 quote:Canada doesn't need to become a state... we'll just make it a territory. We can rename it to the Occupied Northern Landfill. All those miles of wilderness make a perfect site to get rid of the waste products from our standard of living. True, but I was hoping to save Mexico for that. I'm kind of a greenie so I'd hate to poison all those forests and aminals. But Mexico is nothing but sand and some reptiles. I could live with that.
Charles Lindsey Posted October 18, 2002 Report Posted October 18, 2002 quote:plus under his watch, corporate America has raped and pillaged better then any Viking I ever heard of leaving us with a broken and thoroughly ravaged economy..Go read Race's thread A Domestic Disturbance. I posted my opinion there. Plus this just in. North Korea , one of the axis of evil, now admits to having a nuclear arms program. Now what?
Kevin Trotter Posted October 18, 2002 Report Posted October 18, 2002 The what now on Korea is we don't want any part of them right now. Saddam is a much easier target. We were able to beat them for a number of reasons ignored by the "rush to war" crowd. One that isn't discussed much was they were poorly trained and poorly equipped and hungry to boot. Ever hear the saying an army travels on it's stomach? They are not talking about low crawling they are referring to the ability to supply and feed itself while in combat.Saddam's units were surrendering to unarmed journalists! Do any of you think that would be the case with North Korea? I will guarantee you an alternate plan , be it sanctions or a diplomatic approach will be adopted. Bush wants an easy victory just in time for the elections or the appearance that it will be easy to provide coattails to regain the majority in the senate. With Korea admitting they have nukes , based on what you rush to war folks continue to post (ad nauseum ad infinitum) then by Gawd we should be drawing up plans to invade right now. But we wont because the security and safety of this country was never the issue to begin with. I guess we have successfully dumbed down the presidency to the point where all he has to do is look tough and give speeches. If that's the case, I 'm voting for Coach Bill Cowher next election. He's tougher and at least writes his own speeches. [ 10-18-2002, 09:56 AM: Message edited by: Race Bannon IV ]
Guest Posted October 18, 2002 Report Posted October 18, 2002 Heh, classic Bush diplomacy. Argue really hard for an extreme version of your goal, then soften up a little and offer your real goal as a compromise. Of course this method of diplomacy does have the slight side effect of pissing off a lot of people, but that is generally what happens in diplomacy. (Note: This is just my opinion on these matters, and I don't have any evidence to really back up my claim, but it is an interesting supposition no?) (Classic refers to his days as governor of texas) [ 10-18-2002, 10:17 AM: Message edited by: Friez12 ]
Guest Posted October 18, 2002 Report Posted October 18, 2002 quote: It has got to be hard for you Jag...the guy your pulling for is hated by so many foreign and domestic it's not even funny....plus under his watch, corporate America has raped and pillaged better then any Viking I ever heard of leaving us with a broken and thoroughly ravaged economy.....all the while rolling back our civil liberties.... First off the pillaging etc, occurred on CLINTONS watch, not Bushes. THe aftermath of that came during Bushes watch, but it all came to fruition while the commander in Thief was in office. Our economy is coming back, THANKS TO BUSH, it took a while for some of the tax breaks etc to take hold, but that's what it takes for a LONG term solution. And what civil liberties have you lost? I haven't lost any, how come you seem to have lost some? I can still carry a gun, I still am secure in my person, property and papers, I still have free speech. What rights are you talking about? quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gore couldn't steal the election -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Can you explain that. You bet I can, the democratic party has been caught and convicted of A: taking foreign campaign contributions, most notably from Red China, among others, they have been fined and forced to give the money back, which they were not exactly happy about. B: the Democratic party in a number of states have been convicted of voter fraud, they would pile a bunch of homeless people in a van and in exchange for cigarettes and alchohol, they drove them from polling place to polling place and vote at each place. They did this in over 10 states, including Florida. They have also been convicted of allowing Illegal aliens to vote, of keeping polling places open AFTER the time they were supposed to close. DEAD people were voting, for whom, the democrats of course. And I won't even talk about what the unions were doing. Voter fraud on the democrat side was so rampant it was insane. Yes, the democrats did their damndest to steal the election from Bush, and when it didn't work and Bush actually won, they sued to try and cheat some more. The SCOTUS put a stop to that stupidity thank goodness. Then when the house and the senate were controlled by republicans, and then the whitehouse, Jumping Jim Jeffords was bribed with a number of positions to switch to independent and give the senate to the democrats. Which was so blatantly a power grab that it is insane, I hope Jeffords suffers big time by his constituents, I hope that he won't be able to win dog catcher.
Guest Posted October 18, 2002 Report Posted October 18, 2002 quote: ANNE MCELVOY: The war on two fronts The Evening Standard ^ | October 18, 2002 | Anne McElvoy The knee-jerk response is hard to control, but it is rarely a useful one. The Bali bombing is being touted as a reason for forgetting about a war on Iraq. I do not know where people get the idea that the world is meant to be an easy place where you either walk or chew gum, but are never asked to do both at once - but it's a view entirely inadequate for the times in which we live. I understand, even if I don't agree with, people who believe that an attack on Iraq would be a bad idea because it would unleash more chaos than it cured. That is a calculation to be made about any intervention, the eternal tension of hawks and doves. But it is simply incomprehensible to affect that you are - subject to a UN resolution - in favour of an attack on Iraq, but that al Qaeda's spectacle of disruption has made you change your mind. Has Saddam Hussein become any less dangerous since Saturday night? No. Is it likely that al Qaeda will decide to give us all a sporting chance and not bother with the next planned outrage if we back up a weapons ultimatum to Saddam with threat of force? No. Would soft-pedalling on Iraq do anything to aid the campaign against al Qaeda? Hardly - we soft-pedalled for long enough up to now, during which time Bin Laden's network grew into the monstrous hydra of today. Now look at it from the other side. Would changing tack on Iraq give a thrill of satisfaction to al Qaeda's malign but shrewd strategists, because it would establish that they had achieved one of their fundamental aims - weakening the West's resolve about how to encourage a more stable world order? You bet it would. Anyone who wants to give Bin Laden's heirs the satisfaction of knowing that they have acquired this power over the West's intent, and imagines that things will get easier if we wobble, does not know how terrorists think. At the end of the Cold War, I had the intriguing insight of working with the East German spymaster Markus Wolf on his memoirs. He described his puzzlement when dealing with Abu Nidal and Carlos - both of whom were supported by East Germany, the rogue state of its day. To Wolf 's eye as a cynical practitioner of Communist intelligence, the destructive capers of these men, their random disco-bombings and high-risk assaults on Opec, were eccentric and risky. They were, in his words "fighting a different war" from the Soviet Union. But he did his grim business with them because they had a joint interest in causing maximum damage to the West. SO regardless of whether there is an operational link between al Qaeda and Saddam's Iraq, there is something more threatening - an identity of purpose and a determination to break the will of the international community. Al Qaeda's aim is to undermine, distort and change the values of the countries it targets. Would al Qaeda launch an attack while a war with Iraq was in progress? It might well, because the aim is to cause maximum disruption. But not conducting a war on Saddam in no way lessens the threat of another outrage. Once the international community is on the run, the aim of its enemies would be to pile on more, not less, pressure. The world is a more difficult place than it was during the Cold War, or in the brief period of relative global serenity which followed and ended on 11 September. Bertolt Brecht wrote Of Poor BB, reflecting on the mood in the first half of the last century: "Here we lived/a lighthearted species/in homes thought indestructible...the mankind of Brecht's poem lives in a pleasant dream, lulled by his technological prowess into a false sense of security. The Third Reich, the World War, the Holocaust all shatter that delusion. Our position is not so very different at the beginning of the next century - a time of great progress and international co-operation coupled with a corrosive uncertainty about how we should respond to threats of destructive capability, whether from Saddam's weapons of mass destruction or al Qaedainspired bombers of Kuta slaughtering tourists. No one should pretend that our options are easy or that they don't entail risks. But looking around for the next available excuse not to act is not the safe option: just the lazy, dangerous one. One of the oddest suggestions of the past few days was President Clinton's flip accusation that President Bush had "taken his eye off the ball" and allowed Indonesia to fall prey to penetration by Islamic fundamentalists. He is being unstatesmanlike and duplicitous in equal measure. It is perfectly possible for America to be asked to fight threats on more than one front, because it always has. That is the fate of a superpower. One thing we ought to have learned from reaping the whirlwind of 11 September is that if we fail to respond to dangers as they arise, we store up trouble for ourselves - President Clinton has apparently forgotten that his own eye was off the ball during the rise of Bin Laden. We have some implacable and unignorable enemies. That is the fundamental insight that unites politicians as different as George Bush and Tony Blair. It eludes the amiably muddled heads of people like Charles Kennedy, who to judge by his Commons havering yesterday, imagines that due attention to poverty alleviation would solve the problem of the "roots of terrorism". By all means, Mr Kennedy, lead a party that is passionate and rigorous about the needs of developing world and our responsibility for it. By the same token I devoutly hope that Mr Blair succeeds in convincing a sometimes purblind Bush administration that there can be no lasting peace without a settlement in the Middle East and that a stable Palestinian state, supported by the US, is a minimum requirement for that. These are honourable goals and we shouldn't give up the fight for them. But let's stop peddling this meretricious rubbish that suggests that such improvements would in any way change the destructive will of terrorists who are implacable and who will only give up, like the murderous generations before them, when they lose the support of states that feed them and are isolated and hunted down by a determined and united international community. If there were an easier option, I'd take it. There isn't.
Lotharr Posted October 18, 2002 Report Posted October 18, 2002 Alright Jag you wanna act like you don't know what I'm talking about then have it your way. You do need to provide some evidence for your claims about fraud....something scientific would be nice but hell I'd like to see some corporate media version of what youre talking about. I'm not afraid of the truth and I'm sure as hell not a Democrat....but what are you? Clinton was bought and paid forjust like Bushonly Dems like to pretend they care about the people while they march to the bank.Bush and crew are the bank. You conservatives talk about minimized government to protect people and help the economy.but the truth is youre supporting quasigovernmental institutions that have more wealth then most countries combined.. I believe in capitalism right now. BUT WTF!! These multinational institutions are inherently non democratic and non republican.so how much does liberty cost these days Jag.please tell me.so I can make enough money to buy it for my kids. quote: Note: This is just my opinion on these matters, and I don't have any evidence to really back up my claim, but it is an interesting supposition no? Have at it.... Everyone has the evidence but no one has the truth.
Kevin Trotter Posted October 18, 2002 Report Posted October 18, 2002 From happy to be Clueless, Dear Jag, It is clear that while you very articulate you seem to never hear anything that changes your opinion. Anyone who disagrees can't have a differing opinion they have to be clueless, uninformed, without morals etc.. See a pattern? It must be great to always be on the right side of an issue(no pun intended)but I find it exhausting to read your posts because of thier mindnumbing Christopher Hitchins-like blame Clinton sameness. Are we to believe that nothing untoward was done on the part of the Republicans in Florida? That none of our current economic situation is at all the fault of the current administration? Is it in you to admit any wrong doing or incompetence or just plain mistake making on the people on your side of the aisle? Also it necessary to insult daily the beliefs of those who do not subscribe to your world view? It is really quite tedious and frankly intellectually unsatisfying. I guess the term agree to disagree and the concept of civility is completely unfamiliar to you. I hope it isn't because as much as disagree with you I respect your opinion and your right to having it , but I don't get the since that you feel the same about mine.
Lotharr Posted October 18, 2002 Report Posted October 18, 2002 quote:Insert trite "who gives a crap about people" smug quasi-intellectual quip here
Guest Posted October 18, 2002 Report Posted October 18, 2002 quote: Dear Jag, It is clear that while you very articulate you seem to never hear anything that changes your opinion. Anyone who disagrees can't have a differing opinion they have to be clueless, uninformed, without morals etc.. See a pattern? It must be great to always be on the right side of an issue(no pun intended)but I find it exhausting to read your posts because of thier mindnumbing Christopher Hitchins-like blame Clinton sameness. Are we to believe that nothing untoward was done on the part of the Republicans in Florida? That none of our current economic situation is at all the fault of the current administration? Is it in you to admit any wrong doing or incompetence or just plain mistake making on the people on your side of the aisle? Also it necessary to insult daily the beliefs of those who do not subscribe to your world view? It is really quite tedious and frankly intellectually unsatisfying. I guess the term agree to disagree and the concept of civility is completely unfamiliar to you. I hope it isn't because as much as disagree with you I respect your opinion and your right to having it , but I don't get the since that you feel the same about mine. Dear clueless, when it comes to the economy, it takes between 6-10 years for any government program to have a REAL effect on the economy. Reagans economy really began hitting during the Clinton administration, Clinton inherited a WONDERFUL economy, left to him by REPUBLICANS and most of all REAGAN. Bush on the other hand inherited a CLINTON economy, Bush got what Clinton left for him, after the largest tax increase in history, the liar in Chief began his piecemeal attack of destroying what Reagan had left him. Those effects took hold in the last months of The liars administration and really began hitting in Bush's first months. Just as Clionton inherited Reagans economy, Bush has inherited Clintons. Believe it or not, I am amazed that the tax cuts have helped as soon as they have, I was not expecting anything to get better for at least another 12 months, the tax cut was NOT big enough to have a quicker effect. So no, it is NOT the Bush administrations fault that the economy is bad, it is directly related to Clinton, NO IF's AND's or BUT's. Then again, most people are clueless when it comes to how the economy works, so I don't blame you for your silly statements about it being Bush's fault, most uninformed people make that same mistake. We are living in a Clinton economy, and soon will be living in a Bush one, his direct actions have had an amazingly quick effect and it will only get better. I don't like socialist, never have, NEVER will, I am Reagan Republican, I call it as I see it, and if it hurts your feelings, then so be it, but maybe it will actually make you think instead of emotionalize everything. Like most Democrats and liberals(and socialist) do. Your ideas DON'T work, NEVER HAVE, NEVER WILL. I am RIGHT, and it is GOOD to be RIGHT!! The problem with your opinions, is that when they turn into law, it effects my bottom line directly, I make LESS money, because it A: gets taken out of my wallet instead of feeding and clothing my children, it gets to feed and clothe someone elses. and B: your actions directly attack and slow down a free market economy. Socialist IDEAS DO NOT WORK, they DESTROY far more then they help. See the USSR for just such an example, see Canada for another example, their economy is going to implode very soon and they don't have a clue what is causing it, WELL DUH!!! Can you say socialist ideas mixed into a free market society? Free healthcare, give me a fricking break, NOTHING is free. Democrats and socialist need to think for once instead of trying to make everyone feel good about themselves. Let me keep more of my money and I will show you what I, personally can do with it, TURN IT INTO MORE money!! Turn it into MORE jobs, CREATE with it. The government does NOT create jobs, it DOES not CREATE wealth, it DOES NOT do anything but either meddle or leave it alone. Democrats meddle and tax, which destroys a free market economy, please see the last 12-24 months, Republicans like to cut taxes and get rid of red tape, see the Reagan economy and the now beginning of the Bush economy. It is a pattern you can see, VERY easily, but you have to look!! [ 10-18-2002, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]
Lotharr Posted October 18, 2002 Report Posted October 18, 2002 Wow....he's been watching Bush and taking notes.... Hey Jag where did you get your MBA? Did you go to Yale too?
Guest Posted October 18, 2002 Report Posted October 18, 2002 Like I said Lotharr, It's good to be RIGHT, because I am RIGHT!!
Lotharr Posted October 18, 2002 Report Posted October 18, 2002 quote: effects my bottom line directly, I make LESS money Youre worried about your ability to be successful and about losing the things you have to others who didnt earn it. The American people are being beat over the head with these two idea's every day..... The founding fathers never wanted this. They wanted the best in a person to bring success...not the worst...personal property and wealth to insure personal freedom and growth.not governmentally enforced aristocracy.. If you dont get it together were going to lose the whole game to a bunch of rich scum bags and terrorists that should be part of success.not fighting a holy war.. They have to fight a holy war against our noble and egalitarian ways. Things are not adding up in the Land of Oz..
AWells Posted October 18, 2002 Report Posted October 18, 2002 quote: YouÔÇÖre worried about your ability to be successful and about losing the things you have to others who didnÔÇÖt earn it. The American people are being beat over the head with these two idea's every day..... Silly me, I thought we were on the brink of destroying the world for decades to prevent the spread of socialist ideas. How many Americans died in Korea and Viet Nam fighting communism? I imagine most people would be worried about the spread of marxist ideals in the USA.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now