Bush Impeached [Archive] - AbsolutePunk.net

chubb9

07/25/03, 06:06 AM

It wont happen. On what grounds? Clinton lied under oath, a Crime. Not for fucking. Yes, thats what he lied about. Not what he got impeached for.
IF Bush lied, he would have to had done so by knowing that he lied. I do not think that he himself made up some crazy idea of WMD to invade. IF no WMD are found, then it would be considered a political and informational blunder that would undermine US intelligence for years. I do not personaly think it has anything to do him Bush.

And you have YET to prove him wrong. So how could you?

And why would you want to?
For WINNING a war, waged against a hostile enemy nation?
For REMOVING a safe harbor that protects, aids, and funds terrorists?
For LIBERATING 23 million people who were tortured, murdered, raped and starved by a brutal dictator?

and all the while, gaining a 73% APPROVAL RATING from the American people?

This is a leftwing fantasy, proposed quite appropriately by a newpaper in Los Angeles!

Comparisons with Bill Clinton are disingenuious at best. IF failing to predict the future is an impeachable offense, then perhaps we should have impeached Clinton for PROMISING us a middle class tax cut? Or maybe for PROMISING us "the most ethical administration in history?" Or... even for PROMISING us "free medical care" or "gays in the military!"

No, you CANNOT impeach a president for "not finding weapons of mass destruction fast enough to suit his political opponents." Don't hold your breath waiting for the impeachment to begin.

yeat182

07/25/03, 06:10 AM

Originally posted by mrs.skibahaha
Clinton lied For fucking,
Bush about War? it was on msnbc 2 days ago, could it happen.

Bush didn't lie about anything....

http://www.boortz.com/july14-03.htm
"BUSH’S “LIE”
By far the biggest story over the weekend was Bush’s supposed “lie” in the State of the Union Speech. The Democrats obviously feel that they finally have an issue that they can use against Bush in 2004, even if it means undermining America’s victory in Iraq.

Here, for those of you who were out camping over the weekend, are Bush’s controversial 16 words.

“The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

Democrats and their fellow travelers in the media are saying that this was a lie. Not so. The statement was true when Bush made it, and is true today. Consider these words from Tony Blair to the British Parliament just last week:

“In the 1980’s Iraq purchased somewhere in the region of 200 or more tons of uranium from Niger. The evidence that we had that the Iraqi government had gone back to try to purchase further amounts of uranium from Niger did not come from so-called ‘forged’ documents, they came from separate intelligence.”

Blair is standing by the findings of his governments intelligence forces. This would mean that Bush’s statement which begins with the words “The British government has learned ….” is correct.

The problem is that you didn’t hear about Blair’s statement from one single major news outlet last week. Not one. CNN only started reporting it this morning.

I guess we shouldn’t be surprised. Why would the mainstream media, which votes overwhelmingly Democrat, get in the way of a perfectly good opportunity to nail George Bush? "

NOFXdesendents5

07/25/03, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by chubb9
It wont happen. On what grounds? Clinton lied under oath, a Crime. Not for fucking. Yes, thats what he lied about. Not what he got impeached for.
IF Bush lied, he would have to had done so by knowing that he lied. I do not think that he himself made up some crazy idea of WMD to invade. IF no WMD are found, then it would be considered a political and informational blunder that would undermine US intelligence for years. I do not personaly think it has anything to do him Bush.

And you have YET to prove him wrong. So how could you?

And why would you want to?
For WINNING a war, waged against a hostile enemy nation?
For REMOVING a safe harbor that protects, aids, and funds terrorists?
For LIBERATING 23 million people who were tortured, murdered, raped and starved by a brutal dictator?

and all the while, gaining a 73% APPROVAL RATING from the American people?

This is a leftwing fantasy, proposed quite appropriately by a newpaper in Los Angeles!

Comparisons with Bill Clinton are disingenuious at best. IF failing to predict the future is an impeachable offense, then perhaps we should have impeached Clinton for PROMISING us a middle class tax cut? Or maybe for PROMISING us "the most ethical administration in history?" Or... even for PROMISING us "free medical care" or "gays in the military!"

No, you CANNOT impeach a president for "not finding weapons of mass destruction fast enough to suit his political opponents." Don't hold your breath waiting for the impeachment to begin.

You are now my favorite newb on this site.

Ronin

07/25/03, 08:38 AM

Originally posted by chubb9
For WINNING a war, waged against a hostile enemy nation?

Wow, the most powerful nation on earth with the most sophisticated technology managed to obliterate a nation that uses antiquated Soviet weaponry and technology.

Would you like a fucking cookie?

NOFXdesendents5

07/25/03, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by Ronin
Wow, the most powerful nation on earth with the most sophisticated technology managed to obliterate a nation that uses antiquated Soviet weaponry and technology.

Would you like a fucking cookie?

So just cause they use shit weapons means they are not hostile?;)

Ronin

07/25/03, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by NOFXdesendents5
So just cause they use shit weapons means they are not hostile?;)

A little kid on the street threw a rock at me today.

So I pulled out my Desert Eagle and shot him....

NOFXdesendents5

07/25/03, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by Ronin
A little kid on the street threw a rock at me today.

So I pulled out my Desert Eagle and shot him....

Good for you. I don't think I am Israeli so I can't really take offense for that.

Ronin

07/25/03, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by NOFXdesendents5
Good for you. I don't think I am Israeli so I can't really take offense for that.

Why would an Israeli take offense to that? Should a Russian be offended every time someone from Compton raps about an AK?

I just used the example of the Desert Eagle because it's a big handgun.

chubb9

07/25/03, 01:48 PM

Haha thanks. Glad to see some america supporters...

Now ronin
Wow, the most powerful nation on earth with the most sophisticated technology managed to obliterate a nation that uses antiquated Soviet weaponry and technology.

Its not the fact that i was bragging we won, but that he had the nuts to go over there and do something. And yea, I am damn proud of that. Do you not feel safer now that a tyrant dictator has been removed? Are you not satisfied that Iraq will no longer be a terrorist harboring nation? Are you not happy to see 23 MILLION iraqis liberated? I'm sorry to dissapoint you...

And in my eyes terrorism was their number one wmd.

Ronin

07/25/03, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by chubb9
Its not the fact that i was bragging we won, but that he had the nuts to go over there and do something. And yea, I am damn proud of that. Do you not feel safer now that a tyrant dictator has been removed? Are you not satisfied that Iraq will no longer be a terrorist harboring nation? Are you not happy to see 23 MILLION iraqis liberated? I'm sorry to dissapoint you...

And in my eyes terrorism was their number one wmd.

Bush has the "nuts" to send American soldiers to Iraq.

Wow, it take a big set to send other people to fight a war. Bush is a real man.

I didn't feel unsafe with Saddam Hussein in power. Show me a DIRECT link between Saddam Hussein and attacks against North America, please. He was rendered fairly impotent after the Gulf War, and I don't now (nor did we ever) see any ICBM's sticking out of the Iraqi desert, aimed at our continent.

I'm glad he's gone, but I question the methods used to oust him from his position. I think Bush used scare tactics and faulty logic to justify a war that was unneccessary,

And yes, 23 MILLION (note the capital letters, it indicates a large number) Iraqis are probably pretty damn happy to have Saddam out of power, but it's going to cause (and it already has caused) a hell of a lot of problems. I think the situation could have been handled better.

You seem to be of the opinion that the end justifies the means, and though this kind of utilitarian argument is common, I personally don't buy it.

And don't be so condescending as to assume that people on the "left" don't think terrorism is a problem. Obviously it's a fucking problem, but what kind of terrorism is the US going to fight? They haven't exactly dropped a nice concise definition, so why don't they send troops into every country in the world dealing with terrorism. So far America has shown that it defines terrorism as Islamic fundamentalism, and that's bullshit.

WithStamin

07/25/03, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by NOFXdesendents5
You are now my favorite newb on this site. I hope he sticks around. :)

I find it amusing that you liberal who are all up in arms against action in Iraq are so gung-ho about heading into Liberia. Mass graves are being discovered weekly in Iraq. The humanitarian crisis was as bad, if not worse, than it is in Liberia; not to mention Saddam was developing WMDs. If you're going to be anti-war, at least be consistant.

chubb9

07/25/03, 05:06 PM

Wow, it take a big set to send other people to fight a war. Bush is a real man.

Bush is the comander and chief of out military. That is his job. He respects the military and understands it. Past presidents (Clinton) didnt. His attempts to eliminate terrorism were inept.

I didn't feel unsafe with Saddam Hussein in power. Show me a DIRECT link between Saddam Hussein and attacks against North America, please.

Does he need to attack to be considered a threat? If so, lets let NK do their own thing. Right? No, wrong. 9/11 there was this big attack on the world trade centers in New York. Do you remember? Well, after that President Bush declaired war on ANY nation harboring terrorism. They fell under these guidelines. They also did not comply with many resolutions, but we dont need to go into those do we?
And personally, I feel unsafe with terrorists in the world. One less makes me feel that much better.

I'm glad he's gone, but I question the methods used to oust him from his position. I think Bush used scare tactics and faulty logic to justify a war that was unneccessary,

Could we of done it differently? Yea probably, looking back on it now. But the fact the you "think" he used scare tactics and "faulty" logic means nothing. First its an opinion. Second you dont know its faulty. Prove to me it is...

but it's going to cause (and it already has caused) a hell of a lot of problems

It will take some time, god damn. I'm sure you think after the Revolutionary war our government sprung out of nowhere right?

You seem to be of the opinion that the end justifies the means, and though this kind of utilitarian argument is common, I personally don't buy it.

I think the outcome justifies the mean. Thats what i think though, you have the right to your opinion.

And don't be so condescending as to assume that people on the "left" don't think terrorism is a problem

Well the way the left has handled the problem in the past has done nothing. So that leads me to the assumption that the dont think its a big enough problem. Clinton tried to appease. Didn't work. We were hit with attack upon attack. Bush is trying to use brute force and power to send a clear message that we're not going to take it. He has eliminated a terrorist friendly regime and a couple countries surrounding iraq, mainly syria, started turning terrorists in.
Bush's plan sounds better to me, what do you think?

so why don't they send troops into every country in the world dealing with terrorism

Well first of all we'd have to go through the UN. You say it like we rushed into this whole thing. Like one day we decided to attack Iraq. 12 years my friend. its been almost 2 years since 1441 was passed by the UN.
And look at the message we sent. You harbor terrorists, we'll eliminate the threat by any means nessecary. If i got that message i'd be sure as hell i got rid of my terrorists. If theres no country to sponsor them, they slowly dissapear.

. So far America has shown that it defines terrorism as Islamic fundamentalism, and that's bullshit.

Whats that? I can't hear you. What? Oh, your talking out of your ass, my bad. Nice spin.

ReFuSeD!

07/25/03, 06:42 PM

Originally posted by chubb9
Do you not feel safer now that a tyrant dictator has been removed? Are you not satisfied that Iraq will no longer be a terrorist harboring nation? Are you not happy to see 23 MILLION iraqis liberated? I'm sorry to dissapoint you...

And in my eyes terrorism was their number one wmd.

I'm sure the USA gained more enemies than they lost by invading Iraq. Sure, you got rid of a tyrant dictator, but at the expense of pissing off millions of other people.

Alex Djaferis

07/26/03, 01:14 AM

Originally posted by cal1082
I'm sure most of the countries hated us anyways, i doubt the war was mind changing at all.

it didnt help the image at all though.

Justin_stacy

07/26/03, 02:38 AM

personally who cares.............the rest of the worlds persception of us matters very little to me, because in all honesty i know we did the right thing, and im pretty sure all you on the left know we did the right thing by freeing these oppressed people, but you don't want to admit it because the evil bush/america did it and to be good little socialist you have 1. hate bush and 2. hate america...........and thats fine if thats what you want, just don't think we're going to care what our image looks like to you.........

evil zach

07/26/03, 05:39 AM

personally who cares.............the rest of the worlds persception of us matters very little to me
Were you saying that when they flew planes into American buildings?
because in all honesty i know we did the right thing, and im pretty sure all you on the left know we did the right thing by freeing these oppressed people,
If it was about freeing oppressed people why didn't the US do it in '91? Or when he gassed the kurds in '88? Or any other time during the time saddam was in power? Was he less evil then? If the US is so worried about freeing opressed peoples, why do they continue to do dealings with China or Saudi Arabia. Both of their human rights records are worse then Iraq's.
but you don't want to admit it because the evil bush/america did it and to be good little socialist you have 1. hate bush and 2. hate america
Save that argument for the Progressive Communist Party (PCP), who would support Pol Pot just because he claimed to be a communist. But for the rest of us, you'll have to try again. I don't hate Bu$h. I just disagree with him. I don't hate America. I just disagree with their government. I would bet my left nut that just about every body else who posts here would say the same.
and thats fine if thats what you want, just don't think we're going to care what our image looks like to you.........
Then I suggest you prepare for many more terrorist attaks

yeat182

07/26/03, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by Ronin
Bush has the "nuts" to send American soldiers to Iraq.

Wow, it take a big set to send other people to fight a war. Bush is a real man.

what fucking president has ever fought in a war during his presidency? how many 50 something year old men are on the front lines? that is the stupidest arguement/statement i've ever heard....

yeat182

07/26/03, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by PeeDster
it didnt help the image at all though.

[sarcasm]ooo...lets worry about or image! lets not do what we think is right because it might effect our image! [sarcasm]

this isn't hollywood or france....

yeat182

07/26/03, 08:35 AM

Originally posted by evil zach

If it was about freeing oppressed people why didn't the US do it in '91? Or when he gassed the kurds in '88? Or any other time during the time saddam was in power? Was he less evil then? If the US is so worried about freeing opressed peoples, why do they continue to do dealings with China or Saudi Arabia. Both of their human rights records are worse then Iraq's.

different presidents, different ideas/policies, you can't say because president X didn't do something 15 years ago, we shouldn't do it today...

Ronin

07/26/03, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by chubb9
Bush is the comander and chief of out military. That is his job. He respects the military and understands it. Past presidents (Clinton) didnt. His attempts to eliminate terrorism were inept.

How can you 'eliminate' terrorism? Terrorism is a form of warfare, you can't eliminate it. You can eliminate people, you can't eliminate ideals.

Does he need to attack to be considered a threat? If so, lets let NK do their own thing. Right? No, wrong. 9/11 there was this big attack on the world trade centers in New York. Do you remember? Well, after that President Bush declaired war on ANY nation harboring terrorism. They fell under these guidelines.

Well you'd better gear up for the long haul, because there are dozens and dozens of countries that harbour terrorists, and many are better armed than Iraq. To make such a blanket statement is asinine.

Could we of done it differently? Yea probably, looking back on it now. But the fact the you "think" he used scare tactics and "faulty" logic means nothing. First its an opinion. Second you dont know its faulty. Prove to me it is...

Politics is informed opinion. Prove to me that he used flawless logic.

Bush's main selling point was the WMD. So far they haven't been found, and I don't think they will be. Yes, that's my opinion, and if they find any weapons, then I will be glad to admit that I was wrong. I'm not so dogmatic as to be ignorant.

It will take some time, god damn. I'm sure you think after the Revolutionary war our government sprung out of nowhere right?

You mean YOUR government, I'm Canadian.

So now you can facetiously call me a socialist, and put me into any other grouping that can foster an adversarial thought pattern.

Bush is trying to use brute force and power to send a clear message that we're not going to take it. He has eliminated a terrorist friendly regime and a couple countries surrounding iraq, mainly syria, started turning terrorists in.
Bush's plan sounds better to me, what do you think?

If you think the war on Iraq is an effective solution to ending global terrorism, you're being fairly narrow-minded.

Whats that? I can't hear you. What? Oh, your talking out of your ass, my bad. Nice spin.

You know what? That's not a ratonal response to a rational comment, it's idiocy. I said that the US had apparently defined terrorism as Islamic fundamentalism. I said that because

a) thousands of islamic fundamentalists are being detained by the US at the present time
b) you've bombed 2 countries, both of them were arabic

If you can name ONE terrorist group that isn't arabic-based that the Bush administration has gone after, I'll concede the point.

And don't come here to bitch out the opposite "wing". Come here to discuss points. We're not boxers in a ring here, and you won't knock me out with a scathing critique of left wing politics. I don't prescribe to any fucking doctrine besides my own set of values. I'm not democratic, republican, communist, liberal, left-wing, socialist, or any of that bullshit.

yeat182

07/26/03, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by Ronin
How can you 'eliminate' terrorism? Terrorism is a form of warfare, you can't eliminate it. You can eliminate people, you can't eliminate ideals.

what about slavery? what about women's rights? we elimitnated those ideals for the most part, among others...while you're probably right that you can't elimintate "terrorism" you can eliminate the current terrorist threat...

Ronin

07/26/03, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by yeat182
what about slavery? what about women's rights? we elimitnated those ideals for the most part, among others...while you're probably right that you can't elimintate "terrorism" you can eliminate the current terrorist threat...

Funny because it sounds like your're saying "we eliminated the ideal of women's rights"

I know what you meant though.

The thing is, Bush hasn't declared a "war on the current terrorist threat", he's gone outright looney and declared a war on terrorism in general.

I believe that America has every right to defend itself and take precautions so that September 11 never happens again, but I just think Bush is being far too gung-ho about it.

In my opinion, going after the Taliban was justified, but going after Iraq wasn't.

yeat182

07/26/03, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by Ronin
Funny because it sounds like your're saying "we eliminated the ideal of women's rights"

I know what you meant though.

haha, yes...my bad.

The thing is, Bush hasn't declared a "war on the current terrorist threat", he's gone outright looney and declared a war on terrorism in general.

that is sort of just argueing over semantics...i think he feels a war on terrorism in general is better for every country of the world, it makes it safer for everyone, not only america, and that as the last superpower, we have the resources and responsibility to do our best to make sure Sept. 11th doesn't happen anywhere...

BustaNutz

07/26/03, 10:58 AM

Oh man, it embarasses me Skibahaha is from the left. But seriously. If Bush was half the man Clinton was we'd be lucky. Bush is like Reagan, he's a shell of a man with a good cast and a personality that this nation loves. Removing the fact he is Dubya and looking at it objectively, Bush ahs gotten us into two wars, right or wrong, he got us into two wars. He has claimed that Iraq had WMD's and people (some) believed him, but now with out inability to find them we are beginning to look worse and worse. And you may not care about our image, but when the time comes to take down NK we may not have any allies. Because by that point Blair will be out of England's office of Prime Minister, and I'll just say that Bushy is responsible for ending Blair's tenure as PM of England. Our economy is shit right now, we're in deficit further than we ever have been. If Bush was a democrat the republican party would be up in arms over this. And don't tell me you wouldn't be. Because Bush is a shitty president. I'm not saying Clinton was a great president. But I'd take Clinton over Bush on any day.

And as for the future, when we're old enough to pay for all these expenditures by Bush, and we're paying taxes out of our asses, we'll see how much we love Dubya.

Ronin

07/26/03, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by cal1082
You're pretty much saying if you can't beat it why fight it.

No, I'm saying everyone should be realistic about it.

WithStamin

07/26/03, 11:15 AM

Bush ahs gotten us into two wars, right or wrong, he got us into two wars. So basically he's keeping the nation safe...
He has claimed that Iraq had WMD's and people (some) believed him, but now with out inability to find them we are beginning to look worse and worse. They were there. No one in their right mind can deny that. Even Bill Clinton agrees! If he used them on his own people, you would think that it might be a clue that he has them.
And you may not care about our image, but when the time comes to take down NK we may not have any allies. The world will be with us if/when it comes time to take down NK. We still have many allies in the world, France and Germany are just very loud about their unhappiness with us.

Because by that point Blair will be out of England's office of Prime Minister, and I'll just say that Bushy is responsible for ending Blair's tenure as PM of England. This is sad, but Blair is doing what he knows is right. It's Britian's loss.
Our economy is shit right now, we're in deficit further than we ever have been. The economy is on the rebound. The market's back over 9000, jobless claims are dropping. Unemployment will follow. The deficit is not the biggest if you look at percent of GNP. Inflation makes a big different, you know.

BustaNutz

07/26/03, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by WithStamin
So basically he's keeping the nation safe...
They were there. No one in their right mind can deny that. Even Bill Clinton agrees! If he used them on his own people, you would think that it might be a clue that he has them.
The world will be with us if/when it comes time to take down NK. We still have many allies in the world, France and Germany are just very loud about their unhappiness with us.

This is sad, but Blair is doing what he knows is right. It's Britian's loss.
The economy is on the rebound. The market's back over 9000, jobless claims are dropping. Unemployment will follow. The deficit is not the biggest if you look at percent of GNP. Inflation makes a big different, you know.

You make valid points, and I like you a hell of a lot better than that Chub guy. But:

Last month unemployment went up. Keeping the country safe is one thing, but you have to admit Saddam was not about to attack us. So maybe keeping our interests safe would be a better choice of words. Because we were in no danger from Saddam. I like Blair, I don't always agree with his policy, but he is a strong man, and a good leader. It is a shame that because he went with his instincts his career is pretty much done.

But more importantly, we can't find the weapons. Sure they HAD the weapons, but if we can't find them, they don't anymore. If they did, we'd have found them. And a trailor in the desert does not count for me. You bring me a sack of powder held by a man in a toxic-proof suit, and I will desist my protest of this war.

Oh yes, and by the way. I don't favor action in Liberia, and I'm from the Left. We are spreading ourselves much too thin already.

WithStamin

07/26/03, 02:59 PM

Last month unemployment went up. Yes, but the stock market is rebounding. The economy, historically, follows the stock market fairly closely.

Keeping the country safe is one thing, but you have to admit Saddam was not about to attack us. So maybe keeping our interests safe would be a better choice of words. Because we were in no danger from Saddam. Would you rather wait until he was about to attack us? Sure wait another five years. Then you have another North Korea on your hands. Not a pretty situation.

But more importantly, we can't find the weapons. Sure they HAD the weapons, but if we can't find them, they don't anymore. If they did, we'd have found them. And a trailor in the desert does not count for me. You bring me a sack of powder held by a man in a toxic-proof suit, and I will desist my protest of this war. Saddam had 12 years to hide these weapons, and he did a good job. He probably hid them with this exact end in mind: political turmoil. There was a huge increase in traffic over the Iraq-Syria border in the weeks leading up to the war. The weapons could have gone there. Saddam even threatened to use these "non-existant" weapons on our troops if we invaded.

bossydacow

07/26/03, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by WithStamin
Saddam even threatened to use these "non-existant" weapons on our troops if we invaded.

But we did invade, and he didn't use them. Why not? He had nothing to lose. and I'd think a guy like that would like to go out with a bang. I think if he had the weapons, he would have used them.

WithStamin

07/26/03, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by bossydacow
But we did invade, and he didn't use them. Why not? He had nothing to lose. and I'd think a guy like that would like to go out with a bang. I think if he had the weapons, he would have used them. I think we either destroyed them too fast (remember, WMD sites were some of the first things targeted in Iraqi Freedom) or he saw that it would do more damage to Bush politically to hide them and make it all look like a big lie.

bossydacow

07/26/03, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by WithStamin
I think we either destroyed them too fast (remember, WMD sites were some of the first things targeted in Iraqi Freedom) or he saw that it would do more damage to Bush politically to hide them and make it all look like a big lie.

I don't know. Saddam seems like he'd be a man who would much rather opt to kill a shit load of people, than just try to ruin one man's political career.

BustaNutz

07/26/03, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by WithStamin
Saddam had 12 years to hide these weapons, and he did a good job. He probably hid them with this exact end in mind: political turmoil. There was a huge increase in traffic over the Iraq-Syria border in the weeks leading up to the war. The weapons could have gone there. Saddam even threatened to use these "non-existant" weapons on our troops if we invaded.

Have you ever considered maybe he actually destroyed them? Until we find them, they weren't there. What we think and what we have proven are entirely different. We have no proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

And if Saddam wasn't ballsy enough to use his "weapons" when we invaded, how can you possibly tell me he would have used them otherwise. Saddam's order of preference is 1.) Self Preservation 2.) Conquest. He wasn't going to endanger himself.

WithStamin

07/26/03, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by AudioBoxers
Have you ever considered maybe he actually destroyed them? Until we find them, they weren't there. What we think and what we have proven are entirely different. We have no proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If he destroyed them, he could have proven it. There was good evidence that weapons were there. There may have been a sliver of doubt, but do you really think that we should take the risk that that sliver could cost thousands of American lives?

And if Saddam wasn't ballsy enough to use his "weapons" when we invaded, how can you possibly tell me he would have used them otherwise. Saddam's order of preference is 1.) Self Preservation 2.) Conquest. He wasn't going to endanger himself. Again, he may have been unable to use them. We don't know.

BustaNutz

07/26/03, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by WithStamin
If he destroyed them, he could have proven it. There was good evidence that weapons were there. There may have been a sliver of doubt, but do you really think that we should take the risk that that sliver could cost thousands of American lives?

Again, he may have been unable to use them. We don't know.

He wasn't going to attack us. He wasn't an imminent threat. Was he a harsh dictator? Yes. But was he deserving of our immediate attention, no. This war is going to make us more susceptible to terrorism than we ever were before. A prolonged stay in Iraq not only taxes our military (and our citizens) but it also endangers the troops we have over there.

chubb9

07/26/03, 04:49 PM

How can you 'eliminate' terrorism? Terrorism is a form of warfare, you can't eliminate it. You can eliminate people, you can't eliminate ideals.

You probably can't eliminate it completely but you can do your best to minimize the attacks against your country. Are you suggesting we sit back and just wait to lick out wounds after each attack instead of addressing the problem?

Prove to me that he used flawless logic.

He used the information he was provided with. Whether it was flawless or not no one knows.

You mean YOUR government, I'm Canadian

Well then that explains a lot.

If you think the war on Iraq is an effective solution to ending global terrorism, you're being fairly narrow-minded.

Well its a start. What would you suggest?

a) thousands of islamic fundamentalists are being detained by the US at the present time
b) you've bombed 2 countries, both of them were arabic

Hmm would it be because the fact that they are the ones attacking our country? I can't remember the last time the IRA attacked america. However, i can remember the last time 19 islamic terrorists crash two planes into two of the biggest buildings in america. So the fact that you are suggesting that we're targeting "islamic fundalmentalist" is the "idiocy".

MaybeOneDay

07/26/03, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by chubb9
Well then that explains a lot.

fuck you, what's wrong with canada ?

Ronin

07/26/03, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by chubb9
You probably can't eliminate it completely but you can do your best to minimize the attacks against your country. Are you suggesting we sit back and just wait to lick out wounds after each attack instead of addressing the problem?

So what you're insinuating is that the US should start a preemptive war with any country that could possibly attack it in the future.

That is utterly and completely insane.

Well then that explains a lot.

Well franky, you're an ignorant fuck. My natonality has absolutely nothing to do with my views on anything. What exactly would I be indoctrinated with in Canada? A love for hockey? I'm intelligent enough to formulate thoughts and opinions of my own, and my fucking nationality does not explain one goddamn thing.

This fucking bigoted mindset where you consider everyone from a country to be the same is absolutely fucking ridiculous.

Hmm would it be because the fact that they are the ones attacking our country? I can't remember the last time the IRA attacked america. However, i can remember the last time 19 islamic terrorists crash two planes into two of the biggest buildings in america. So the fact that you are suggesting that we're targeting "islamic fundalmentalist" is the "idiocy".

Iraq didn't attack your country.

And I don't disagree with the military action against Afghanistan, but the fact remains that the Bush administration has said that it would "fight terrorism" but instead has ONLY fought terrorism of the islamic fundamentalist kind.

Most of the people here are pretty decent, but talking to you is like talking to a fucking brick wall.

Ronin

07/26/03, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by cal1082
Maybe it's just me, but i wouldnt think that anyone thinks you can eliminate it completely. Still doesnt mean you dont might it with everything you got.

But you're a fairly intelligent person.

And frankly, Joe American (and Joe Canadian) isn't of staggering intelligentce. I think Bush should come right out and discuss the problem instead of spouting his superhero type lines
"The evildoers will be destroyed. America wll not tolerate evildoing"

He needs to be a little more down to earth on this.

BustaNutz

07/26/03, 06:29 PM

What amazes me is America doesn't have the foresight to see where we are going as a country. Bush is a tremendous leader, he's leading us blindly into debt and war. And we're eating it up. If Bush was a democrat, the Republicans and the right would be going crazy over this. It has nothing to do with his actual accomplishments, it's the fact he represents your party and side of the fence. That's why Clinton gets a tough rap, if he had been Republican he would be made out to be a god. If Reagan had been a democrat you'd hate him. It's got nothing to do with actual political policy and everything to do with political party.

Ronin

07/26/03, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by cal1082
For the most part you're right, but we never saw a huge deal over Clinton sending troops into Kosovo from the Republicans. You heard little stuff, but not much.

I think most people saw it as neccessary. There was full scale genocide and ethnic cleansing.

I don't think the democrats opposed the war in Afghanistan, did they? (I'm really not sure)

BustaNutz

07/26/03, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by cal1082
Who you have been opposed to America removing Saddam back during the Gulf War after he invaded another country?

We should have taken Saddam out the first time. We would have been better off. I think all people agree on that now.

BustaNutz

07/26/03, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by cal1082
So i guess that's a yes you would support it.

If that's the case wouldnt you support attacking him if he didnt live up to his end of the deal after the Gulf War. Because in eccesense you would be attacking him for his actions because of the Gulf War.

No that's double jeopardy. We attacked for his actions in the Gulf War. I think if we truly needed to eliminate Saddam, we could have just assasinated him. We have laser guided bombs that are operated from thousands of miles away, yet we can't find this man and put a bullet in his head? If it HAD to be done, we could have done it without a war. And I don't think as of this point it HAD to be done.

Thank you for being intelligent and making this debate worth having...

open mind

07/27/03, 01:17 AM

Anyway impeaching Bush just means you put Dick Cheney in power and I don't think that's really much of an improvement.

WithStamin

07/27/03, 06:26 AM

Originally posted by AudioBoxers
No that's double jeopardy. We attacked for his actions in the Gulf War. I think if we truly needed to eliminate Saddam, we could have just assasinated him. We have laser guided bombs that are operated from thousands of miles away, yet we can't find this man and put a bullet in his head? If it HAD to be done, we could have done it without a war. And I don't think as of this point it HAD to be done.

Thank you for being intelligent and making this debate worth having... If we just assasinated him, one of his sons could just take over. It wasn't the man, specifically, that was the problem. It was the regime.

Ronin

07/27/03, 06:36 AM

Originally posted by WithStamin
If we just assasinated him, one of his sons could just take over. It wasn't the man, specifically, that was the problem. It was the regime.

I'm not arguing with you, because you're absolutely right.

But in a dictatorship, isn't the man the regime? They're essentially interchangeable.

WithStamin

07/27/03, 06:40 AM

Originally posted by Ronin
I'm not arguing with you, because you're absolutely right.

But in a dictatorship, isn't the man the regime? They're essentially interchangeable. The man is the figurehead of the regime, but anyone close to him can easily take the reigns and you still have the same problem.

Ronin

07/27/03, 06:43 AM

Originally posted by WithStamin
The man is the figurehead of the regime, but anyone close to him can easily take the reigns and you still have the same problem.

Not neccesarily true.

Granted, Saddams sons were nasty fuckers, but how much do we know about his cabinet (or whatever he had)

After Stalin died, he successors distanced themselves from his heinous acts, even though they participated in them. They just did what the leader told them to do, even if they were against it. Who knows if Saddam's underlings weren't the same way?

But there's obviously no way we can really know

yeat182

07/27/03, 06:47 AM

Originally posted by Ronin
I think most people saw it as neccessary. There was full scale genocide and ethnic cleansing.

like in Iraq

BustaNutz

07/27/03, 07:05 AM

Originally posted by cal1082
They never know where he is though, and he had like 3 or 4 doubles on top of that. Plus America would have gotten even more hell for assasinating a leader at the time. The U.S has a ban against assasinating leaders.

I still think if you actually supported overthorwing Saddam in the Gulf War, then why wouldnt you support overthrowing him if he breaks the guidelines he promised because of the Gulf War?

I like arguing with you, ronin, and zach alot too eventhough you're alot of times in the wrong :D Now it's off to bed

Well two things on that, first of all, the US Cenate approved a plan to assasinate Saddam Hussein before the war. Plus we have assasinated other learders. I just think that would have possibly been an alternative to an all out war.

Second, I don't disagree that Hussein was an awful man and needed to be removed. I just question whether it needed to be done now. It's over now though and it's done.

BustaNutz

07/27/03, 07:06 AM

Originally posted by yeat182
like in Iraq

The last time Saddam had done anything massively genocidal to the Kurds was a few years ago...

chubb9

07/27/03, 07:08 AM

So what you're insinuating is that the US should start a preemptive war with any country that could possibly attack it in the future

If we see them as a threat, the don't comply with numorous reslolutions, they don't comply with weapons inspectors, the world agree they has wmd just 5 years before, and they support terrorism and refuse to comply, yea a preemptive strike would be ok with me.

Well franky, you're an ignorant fuck. My natonality has absolutely nothing to do with my views on anything. What exactly would I be indoctrinated with in Canada? A love for hockey? I'm intelligent enough to formulate thoughts and opinions of my own, and my fucking nationality does not explain one goddamn thing.

All i said was that explains a lot, you filled in the blanks. Way to put words in my mouth. What if i meant "Then your opinion is well taken and i now have a new respect for you"? You dont know what i meant by that but you insisted on attacking me. Good job.

Iraq didn't attack your country.

We have several reasons for going over there. i'm not going to go over the list again.

Most of the people here are pretty decent, but talking to you is like talking to a fucking brick wall.

You talk to brick walls? Maybe that would explain why you try to put words in my mouth...

, he's leading us blindly into debt and war.

Oh yes. He's leading us blindly. But you, with your miraculous vision to see right through politcal scandal managed to see it.

If Bush was a democrat, the Republicans and the right would be going crazy over this.

No, we wouldn't. Clinton bombed Iraq for the same reasons and we didn't go crazy over that. We didn't sit in the middle of streets and protest every weekend and neither did you or anyone whos against the war now.

BustaNutz

07/27/03, 07:15 AM

Originally posted by chubb9
Oh yes. He's leading us blindly. But you, with your miraculous vision to see right through politcal scandal managed to see it.

No, we wouldn't. Clinton bombed Iraq for the same reasons and we didn't go crazy over that. We didn't sit in the middle of streets and protest every weekend and neither did you or anyone whos against the war now.

Are you kidding me. Bury your political affiliations and look at it unbiased for a second. We're in two wars, with troops now in three countries. Our economy is really struggling, we're fruther in debt than we have ever been, ever! Education in the ocuntry is absolutely horrid, unemployment is up, yet Bush is doing a good job? How can you possibly say that? I'm serious, if Bush was a democrat, you'd be all over him.

And Clinton did bomb Iraq, because they shot at us in a no fly zone. And he just bombed them. He didn't start a war to remove a regime. He didn't claim we had intelligence we didn't have, despite claims from the CIA that it may not be completely reliable.

How can you still say Bush is such a fabulous leader? I really want to know.

chubb9

07/27/03, 07:29 AM

yet Bush is doing a good job? How can you possibly say that?

How can you still say Bush is such a fabulous leader? I really want to know.

Ok, first of all, I DIDN'T say that. You words in my mouth once again.

Honestly, i dont agree with A LOT of what Bush does. On foreign policy i agree with him most of the time. Do i think he's a fabulous leader? No.

Ronin

07/27/03, 07:38 AM

Originally posted by chubb9
[B]If we see them as a threat, the don't comply with numorous reslolutions, they don't comply with weapons inspectors, the world agree they has wmd just 5 years before, and they support terrorism and refuse to comply, yea a preemptive strike would be ok with me.

Originally you said they only need to be considered a threat. There were no qualifiers before, you're backtracking

All i said was that explains a lot, you filled in the blanks. Way to put words in my mouth. What if i meant "Then your opinion is well taken and i now have a new respect for you"? You dont know what i meant by that but you insisted on attacking me. Good job.

Me: I'm Candian
You: Well that explains a lot

It is implied that you assign certain traits/thought patterns to me because of my nationality, and that kind of ignorance pisses me off. Even if, for arguments sake, you assumed that because I was Canadian I was incredibly intelligent and attractive, I would still be pissed off because it's stereotyping, and I hate it.

My nationality only explains my address.

We have several reasons for going over there. i'm not going to go over the list again.

Yes, several justifications were used for the war, but we're talking about one justification in particular. Every time you argue one point and come to a standstill, you can't just say "well there were other reasons too". Each justification has to be judged on it's own merits.

chubb9

07/27/03, 07:49 AM

Yes, several justifications were used for the war, but we're talking about one justification in particular. Every time you argue one point and come to a standstill, you can't just say "well there were other reasons too". Each justification has to be judged on it's own merits

Well your saying "iraq didn't attack you directly" "why don't you go after every country harboring terrorists then". Well, there are serveral reasons for going to iraq other than the terrorists. Thats why the war is not based on one justification because if it was it wouldn't be justified. If harboring terrorists was the only qualification, then hell, we'd be in several different countries by now like you said. But its not.

BustaNutz

07/27/03, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by cal1082
the stock market is up 20% since the war. Also the tax cuts put in place havent taken full effect yet.
I thought Clinton bombed Iraq because the weapons inspectors were kicked out? Also Clinton did say that Iraq had WMD's

Look how much the stock market is down since Bush took office. This twenty percent is nice, but it's not as if the economy is shooting back up. And Clinton did bomb Iraq, and they did kick out inspectors. The difference was, Clinton was more into diplomacy, and viewed war as a last resort. That is why he never started a war with Iraq. Bush already seemed to have an end in mind when he feigned his diplomacy.

.&$

07/27/03, 10:47 AM

the economy will bounce back. it always does, regardless of whos president. we had a massive boom in the late 90's and the bottom fell out rather quickly.

"big plans, big crash" - LTJ

BustaNutz

07/27/03, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by cal1082
The market was on a decline a year before Bush took office. To put all the markets problems on his back is unfair. I agree some blame can be put on the administration, but an equal share could go to the former administration.

It also looked like Clinton's diplomacy didnt work. He never got inspectors back into Iraq either.

Yes, I suppose that in that aspect his policy wasn't effective. Bush's policy was definitely taking a different approach. The difference is, it failed too, he just had a contigency plan for when it did, that plan was war. And yes I realize that the economy rises and falls, but it has really fallen under Bush.

I also saw Clinton as being very active in other middle-eastern affairs. He was very involved in the Isaraeli-Palestinian conflict and he had man negotioations and meetings with Arafat and Sharon (and the leader before him Benjamin Netanyahu). Nation building was a priority to Clinton. When Bush ran he said he didn't place much importance in nation building. Bush said we needed to focus the majority of our attention on ourselves. Looking back this is now the ultimate irony. Because Bush is now engaging in major nation-building in two different countries and it looks as if we will be doing so in Liberia now as well. I understand that 9-11 had a major effect on Bush's foreign policy, but it's amazing how much of an effect.

What I like to look at more is whether Bush had been more proactive in nation building and in world affairs previous to 9-11 if we would have had more support for these wars and if we would have had as many problems in the middle east. Keep in mind Bush more or less ended talks with Palestine and Israel and he really turned his back on the Middle East for a while. This is was a pretty big folly...

Ronin

07/27/03, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by cal1082
(Personal opinion)
Arafat is about as bad as they come. If they could get him out of the way it would help matters so much. That's why i think the introduction of a new prime minister will help.

I'm not Arafat's biggest fan, but at least he wanted peace.

He was just stubborn and dogmatic, not good for peace talks.

WithStamin

07/27/03, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by Ronin
I'm not Arafat's biggest fan, but at least he wanted peace.

He was just stubborn and dogmatic, not good for peace talks. Arafat would only be satisfied with a peace if it involved all Jews burning.

Ronin

07/27/03, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by cal1082
He says he wants peace, then does nothing to prove it. He says he has no control over Hamas and their actions, yet he does not try to stop them at all or plead for them to stop the bombings.

He has "tried" to stop Hamas, he's just done a piss poor job of it.

And Withstamin, that's a pretty broad statement. I'm sure he has no lost love for Israel, but if he wanted them all dead, why work towards any type of settlement?

WithStamin

07/27/03, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by Ronin
And Withstamin, that's a pretty broad statement. I'm sure he has no lost love for Israel, but if he wanted them all dead, why work towards any type of settlement? I was exaggerating. However, I'm sure he'd be quite happy if it happened. I don't think Arafat ever really intened to make a peace, he just made token gestures that did nothing to keep some of the world on its side.

BustaNutz

07/27/03, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by cal1082
What about bush's road map, and the announcment by the administration to have a Palestinian state by like 2006, and the introduction of a new prime minister. The administration has worked hard to combat the confict in the middle east.

(Personal opinion)
Arafat is about as bad as they come. If they could get him out of the way it would help matters so much. That's why i think the introduction of a new prime minister will help.

Again all of these declarations and plans were made post-911. Before that Bush and his admnistration had very little interest in foreign policy. If you remember all the jokes where they would ask Bush about his foreign policy and he would say "what foreign policy?"

yeat182

07/27/03, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by AudioBoxers
Well two things on that, first of all, the US Cenate approved a plan to assasinate Saddam Hussein before the war. Plus we have assasinated other learders. I just think that would have possibly been an alternative to an all out war.

we have not assinated any leaders since the ban was put in place...i believe.

yeat182

07/27/03, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by AudioBoxers
The last time Saddam had done anything massively genocidal to the Kurds was a few years ago...

true, but they were still people and they were still slaughtered, besides, on a general scale, he brutalized the citizens of his country with torturings and murders, maybe not genocide, but still not good...

yeat182

07/27/03, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by Ronin

It is implied that you assign certain traits/thought patterns to me because of my nationality, and that kind of ignorance pisses me off. Even if, for arguments sake, you assumed that because I was Canadian I was incredibly intelligent and attractive, I would still be pissed off because it's stereotyping, and I hate it.

My nationality only explains my address.

A. sterotypes aren't always false, and they aren't always a bad thing

B. you wouldn't be pissed if they considered you intelligent and attractive, its ok, no one would be...

C. People seem to have no problems associating an Americans nationality with certain traits/thought patterns...

yeat182

07/27/03, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by cal1082
the stock market is up 20% since the war. Also the tax cuts put in place havent taken full effect yet.
I thought Clinton bombed Iraq because the weapons inspectors were kicked out? Also Clinton did say that Iraq had WMD's

Clinton bombed Iraq for the following reasons:

1. They kicked out weapons inspectors

2. They shot at us in the no fly zone

3. Monica Lewinsky (i'm willing to withdraw this reason, if others are willing to admit that this war wasn't to conquer Iraqi oil)

yeat182

07/27/03, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by AudioBoxers
Look how much the stock market is down since Bush took office. This twenty percent is nice, but it's not as if the economy is shooting back up.

the state of the economy isn't any one persons fault, everyone likes to blame bush for the bad economy and praise clinton for a good economy, but the reality is that there are hundreds of factors that effect the economy more than who is in charge at the time...

yeat182

07/27/03, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by Ronin
I'm not Arafat's biggest fan, but at least he wanted peace.

He was just stubborn and dogmatic, not good for peace talks.

wait, Arafat WANTED peace? how so? (not trying to be an ass, just curious how you came to that conclusion)

BustaNutz

07/27/03, 05:48 PM

BustaNutz

07/27/03, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by yeat182
wait, Arafat WANTED peace? how so? (not trying to be an ass, just curious how you came to that conclusion)

To be truthful, Arafat is in the worst situation of anyone in the world. He has to attempt to negotiate peace and outwardly look as if he wants to solve this conflict while attempting to save face with people in PLO (which mostly consists of terrorists and extremists). So anything he wants to do, has to be approved by the PLO which is hard-headed and stubborn. It makes life very difficult.

yeat182

07/27/03, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by AudioBoxers
No, stereotypes are ALWAYS bad. You can't find a single good stereoptype. Stereotypes are generalizations and those are bad, regardless of race, wealth or nationality.

that isn't true at all...many steroetypes are bad, i admit, but there are sterotypes/generalizations that are accurate...the problem is, most people think that generalizations or stereotypes apply to everyone they are applied to, when the fact is, it is only a general statement.

yeat182

07/27/03, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by AudioBoxers
To be truthful, Arafat is in the worst situation of anyone in the world. He has to attempt to negotiate peace and outwardly look as if he wants to solve this conflict while attempting to save face with people in PLO (which mostly consists of terrorists and extremists). So anything he wants to do, has to be approved by the PLO which is hard-headed and stubborn. It makes life very difficult.

agreed, but lets not forget that he himself was a terrorist as a youth, and i believe he was and always has been a member of the PLO

BustaNutz

07/27/03, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by yeat182
agreed, but lets not forget that he himself was a terrorist as a youth, and i believe he was and always has been a member of the PLO

The PLO isn't a terrorist group per se. It is actually a legitimate group interested in attaining a Palestinian state. It just consists largely of terrorists.

Justin_stacy

07/27/03, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by Ronin
I'm not Arafat's biggest fan, but at least he wanted peace.

since when do terrorist want peace?

BustaNutz

07/27/03, 07:41 PM

Originally posted by cal1082
-Most blacks are better at basketball than whites.

-Asians seem to be smarter

-Most foreign terrorists against the U.S are middle eastern

-old people are bad drivers

-whites do better in school than blacks

-blacks committ for crimes than whites

All the above are stereotypes. Are they bad? I dont think so because they're true for the most part. A sterotype is not a definite, it's just a logical assumption.

Well toss out the terrorism bit and the basketball part, because you said most, which makes it a statement, not a stereotype. The key point in your statement was this" "they're true for the most part". That is in itself the primary reason stereotypes are bad. Because there are stupid asian people, good elderly drivers (no... no theres not), smart african americans and white convicts. So the statements which are made as truths, are not true. It really mislabels people and it almost encourages ignorance.

Justin_stacy

07/27/03, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by evil zach
Were you saying that when they flew planes into American buildings?

if they choose to have a personally hatred for us because we support the country of Israel thats fine, but will there hatred change our stance or opinions about israel, no, will there cowardice change our opinions or stances about israel, no.........

Originally posted by evil zach
it was about freeing oppressed people why didn't the US do it in '91? Or when he gassed the kurds in '88? Or any other time during the time saddam was in power? Was he less evil then? If the US is so worried about freeing opressed peoples, why do they continue to do dealings with China or Saudi Arabia. Both of their human rights records are worse then Iraq's.

......so it should never be done......we should just let everyone live in oppression because we didn't do it right at the very second you felt that we should have........(because we all know that the side you stand with would never have helped free anyone anywhere).........wouldn't a more human/less selfish approach be to look at how great it is that these people are now free.......

Originally posted by evil zach
Then I suggest you prepare for many more terrorist attaks

so we should just cower to there demands and base all our policy's on what they want rather then what we want.........because we all know your grand plan of "appeasement" always works and would never lead to terrorism..........

yeat182

07/28/03, 05:08 AM

Originally posted by AudioBoxers
Well toss out the terrorism bit and the basketball part, because you said most, which makes it a statement, not a stereotype. The key point in your statement was this" "they're true for the most part". That is in itself the primary reason stereotypes are bad. Because there are stupid asian people, good elderly drivers (no... no theres not), smart african americans and white convicts. So the statements which are made as truths, are not true. It really mislabels people and it almost encourages ignorance.

again, the problem isn't the stereotype, the problem is you (not you personally, a general you), you assume that when someone says "old people are bad drivers" that means ALL old people are bad drivers, when it wasn't a definite statement, merely a generalization, or stereotype.

BrandNewRock05

07/28/03, 05:22 AM

Originally posted by yeat182
again, the problem isn't the stereotype, the problem is you (not you personally, a general you), you assume that when someone says "old people are bad drivers" that means ALL old people are bad drivers, when it wasn't a definite statement, merely a generalization, or stereotype.
MOST old people either drive unsafely or too slowly, which is unsafe as well. Like I was headed out to Eastern Oregon, and I was driving over Mt. Hood, which has some pretty windy roads, and it has lots of traffic coming around blind corners and stuff like that. Anyway, I got stuck behind a car going 30 mph in a 55 zone. I couldnt pass for a good 5 miles, and when I had the chance the car pulled into the right lane...going 30 miles an hour. The passing lane ended so I was still stuck behind this car. The car then drifted off to the right, hitting the gravel on that side of the road and nearly taking out a guard rail. After maintaining control of the car, it drifted onto the wrong side of traffic for a good 200 yards or so and only pulled out when a logger had to honk so it wouldnt run the car over. This car was driving like an intoxicated four year old was behind the wheel...so finally I passed the car and looked right to give them the finger when I saw four old ladies with prescription drugs strewn over the dash, probably headed to Indian territory to lose their Social Security checks at a casino, wearing the big ass sunglasses as well. My point is that old people for the most part have trouble driving. They shouldnt drive, testing doesnt pick up some of the problems that could happen...so make a cut off date, age 70 or something like that. I am sure there are 75 year olds that are capable of driving, but there are also 12 year olds capable of driving too, whats the difference?

BustaNutz

07/28/03, 05:53 AM

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
MOST old people either drive unsafely or too slowly, which is unsafe as well. Like I was headed out to Eastern Oregon, and I was driving over Mt. Hood, which has some pretty windy roads, and it has lots of traffic coming around blind corners and stuff like that. Anyway, I got stuck behind a car going 30 mph in a 55 zone. I couldnt pass for a good 5 miles, and when I had the chance the car pulled into the right lane...going 30 miles an hour. The passing lane ended so I was still stuck behind this car. The car then drifted off to the right, hitting the gravel on that side of the road and nearly taking out a guard rail. After maintaining control of the car, it drifted onto the wrong side of traffic for a good 200 yards or so and only pulled out when a logger had to honk so it wouldnt run the car over. This car was driving like an intoxicated four year old was behind the wheel...so finally I passed the car and looked right to give them the finger when I saw four old ladies with prescription drugs strewn over the dash, probably headed to Indian territory to lose their Social Security checks at a casino, wearing the big ass sunglasses as well. My point is that old people for the most part have trouble driving. They shouldnt drive, testing doesnt pick up some of the problems that could happen...so make a cut off date, age 70 or something like that. I am sure there are 75 year olds that are capable of driving, but there are also 12 year olds capable of driving too, whats the difference?

Ok I understand full well that some old people have difficulty driving. But generalizations and stereotypes are bad. It doesn't matter if they are showing a group of people in a good light, they're still bad. They're broad generalizations which raise misconceptions and ignorance.

yeat182

07/28/03, 06:12 AM

BrandNewRock05

07/28/03, 06:15 AM

Originally posted by AudioBoxers
Ok I understand full well that some old people have difficulty driving. But generalizations and stereotypes are bad. It doesn't matter if they are showing a group of people in a good light, they're still bad. They're broad generalizations which raise misconceptions and ignorance.
I understand that this is a generalization....but they generalize that a 13 year old is incapalbe of driving...which is sometimes true, sometimes not. Just as sometimes a 74 year old can drive and sometimes not. When you dont set an exact date or exact guildline for something, you leave room for opinion and personal judgement. Meaning there is human error. They guy who ran his car through 10 people without knowing it was supposedly perfectly healthy for his age and probably would have passed a driving test, but when you are that old things go wrong, its just that way. Like and old car will give you problems, so will and old person.

Ronin

07/28/03, 07:54 AM

Originally posted by yeat182
A. sterotypes aren't always false, and they aren't always a bad thing

B. you wouldn't be pissed if they considered you intelligent and attractive, its ok, no one would be...

C. People seem to have no problems associating an Americans nationality with certain traits/thought patterns...

No, stereotypes aren't always false, and in fact, they're adaptive. It's easier for us to notice that the majority of a certain type of people possess a certain trait, and assign it to them all. It saves us mental work, but that doesn't make it right.

And I wouldn't be pissed if someone though I was intelligent and attractive, because clearly they know what they're talking about :D

But if someone assumes it because I'm Canadian, then yes, it would actually piss me off. I know that's not normal, but I have a really big problem with stereotypes of any kind. A personal eccentricity I guess, but I think it was fairly obvious what chubby meant when he said that my being Canadian "explained" alot of things.

I personally don't stereotype Americans, but yes, many people do. On a side note, if I've ever (or if I ever do) say that "Americans want..." or "Americans think..." feel free to correct me, because 365 million people do not think alike

Unless they're borg.....

BrandNewRock05

07/28/03, 08:19 AM

But can you honestly tell me I am wrong when it comes to old people and driving...

Ronin

07/28/03, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
But can you honestly tell me I am wrong when it comes to old people and driving...

I didn't read any of that, I was responding to an older quote.

But if this is relevant, old people are worse drivers for the most part. It comes part and parcel with the loss of cognitive function. They need to be monitored much more closely than the average driver.

That might be off topic, but I'm not overly concerned about that topic.

BrandNewRock05

07/28/03, 08:28 AM

Ronin

07/28/03, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by yeat182
wait, Arafat WANTED peace? how so? (not trying to be an ass, just curious how you came to that conclusion)

First I have to clear the air.

I don't support Arafat
I don't think he was a good leader
I don't think he did his best to achieve peace
I believe he had ties to terrorist organizations and didn't do enough to stop them

I'm not defending Arafat (and I know you weren't saying I do, I just want to clear that up for everyone).

But wasn't he better than say, the leader of Hamas, who refuses ANY type of diplomacy, and speaks SOLELY through suicide bombings?

And Israeli prime ministers haven't been all that stellar either. Hell, Netanyahu was a fucking war criminal.

I think both either side would be happy if their "opponent" simply disappeared, but sometimes you just have to take your medicine. Hopefully they'll both learn that

Anyways, here are some of Arafat's "peace" attempts

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0222-01.htm (i know you don't like the source)

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/971226/1997122638.html (again)

http://www.usembassy-israel.org.il/publish/peace/archives/1999/september/me0924a.html (this one you'll probably like more)

He didn't do enough, but I'd hardly call him a terrorist.

And yes, in that last article, he's asking the US for financial support. Please, for the love of god, don't turn this into another topic, it's been beaten to death.

edit: i'll ever add a couple more, in case you don't like the previous ones

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/highlights/clash/story/nc15.html

http://www.nobel.se/peace/laureates/1994/arafat-bio.html (from when he won 1/3 of the nobel peace prize, the relevant part is at the end mostly. also, how do they give you 1/3 of the medal? i'd be pissed, especially if they made me split the money 3 ways)

http://www.jordanembassyus.org/09192001005.htm

yeat182

07/28/03, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by Ronin
I didn't read any of that, I was responding to an older quote.

But if this is relevant, old people are worse drivers for the most part. It comes part and parcel with the loss of cognitive function. They need to be monitored much more closely than the average driver.

That might be off topic, but I'm not overly concerned about that topic.

that is an example of a "true" stereotype, there is nothing wrong with saying that, everyone knows that stereotypes do not apply to everyone...it would be like saying that teenage drivers are bad drivers....for the most part that is true, but of course not every teenage driver is bad. there is nothing wrong with that. I do admit however that all stereotypes are not good and not all are remotely true, some are totally ignorant, like saying all gay people have aids, or all mexicans are illegal aliens, those are simply ignorant statetments to begin with.

BustaNutz

07/28/03, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by yeat182
that is an example of a "true" stereotype, there is nothing wrong with saying that, everyone knows that stereotypes do not apply to everyone...it would be like saying that teenage drivers are bad drivers....for the most part that is true, but of course not every teenage driver is bad. there is nothing wrong with that. I do admit however that all stereotypes are not good and not all are remotely true, some are totally ignorant, like saying all gay people have aids, or all mexicans are illegal aliens, those are simply ignorant statetments to begin with.

You should always say "most" or "the majority of" before you make a generalization though. Otherwise it is bad, and it is labeling. If most are make sure you say it that way.

Justin_stacy

07/29/03, 06:08 AM

Originally posted by Ronin
First I have to clear the air.

I don't support Arafat
I don't think he was a good leader
I don't think he did his best to achieve peace
I believe he had ties to terrorist organizations and didn't do enough to stop them

I'm not defending Arafat (and I know you weren't saying I do, I just want to clear that up for everyone).

But wasn't he better than say, the leader of Hamas, who refuses ANY type of diplomacy, and speaks SOLELY through suicide bombings?

And Israeli prime ministers haven't been all that stellar either. Hell, Netanyahu was a fucking war criminal.

I think both either side would be happy if their "opponent" simply disappeared, but sometimes you just have to take your medicine. Hopefully they'll both learn that

Anyways, here are some of Arafat's "peace" attempts

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0222-01.htm (i know you don't like the source)

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/971226/1997122638.html (again)

http://www.usembassy-israel.org.il/publish/peace/archives/1999/september/me0924a.html (this one you'll probably like more)

He didn't do enough, but I'd hardly call him a terrorist.

And yes, in that last article, he's asking the US for financial support. Please, for the love of god, don't turn this into another topic, it's been beaten to death.

edit: i'll ever add a couple more, in case you don't like the previous ones

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/highlights/clash/story/nc15.html

http://www.nobel.se/peace/laureates/1994/arafat-bio.html (from when he won 1/3 of the nobel peace prize, the relevant part is at the end mostly. also, how do they give you 1/3 of the medal? i'd be pissed, especially if they made me split the money 3 ways)

http://www.jordanembassyus.org/09192001005.htm

arafat talks out of both sides of his mouth, which means he has NO credability.......to the west he preaches peace with israel.......and to the palestians and other middle eastern nations he preaches hatred, terror and violences (and he acts out on these ideas).......so none of the stuff you posted above means anything........this man is a terrorist and always will be a terrorist, and should be treated like one.........