Author Topic: Extremely Hard to Believe (Read 2057 times)

JB88 · « **Reply #30 on:** February 03, 2005, 09:27:32 AM »

communism is hardly what i would consider appealling. nor is fascsm.

both systems, having been tried in thier respective experiments have wrought what i consider to be totalitarian, unyielding and oft murderous results.

niether is fine in my book and niether are american ideals.

fiscally i am conservative. i dont think that its okay for the republicans to raid social security and then claim bankruptcy so that they can pad the expense accounts of thier corporate buds, (i am not against allowing people to use thier money how they want, i am against them being asked to use it in a specific manner that benifits and already overblown corporate welfare state) or start a hugely expensive war under false pretenses that we are now trying to paint with the bright colors of freedom. the jury is still way out on that one.

socially i am liberal. i dont think that its anyones business what anyone else does so long as noone is getting seriously hurt.

i believe that torture is wrong. that it is beneath us.

i believe that persecuting someone for thier beliefs is wrong. period.

i dont believe in frivolous lawsuits, but niether do i believe in placing a cieling on penalties which corporations will factor into thier equasions when deciding what they can afford to let slide.

these are basic american values so far as i can tell.

i wouldnt call them either commie or fascist...as none of these beliefs actually impinge upon anothers freedom, allow for state control, or require that all strata of society be forced to share the fruits of thier labors unrewarded.

etc. etc.

Toad · « **Reply #31 on:** February 03, 2005, 09:30:22 AM »

Nuke, I think my position has been clearly stated and it hasn't changed.

If you care to refresh your memory:

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=129668&highlight=wmd

or

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=119654&highlight=wmd

babek- · « **Reply #32 on:** February 03, 2005, 09:42:32 AM »

In german news reports the speech of Bush was mentioned at 3rd or 4th place. It was said that Bush told the same as everytime (you know - this "We fight for democracy and freedom"-stuff) and that at the end there were two crying women or something like that. They showed no pictures - so I dont know what was meant with these women. Maybe the 8pm-news will show more details.

Actually there is a great soccer scandal in Germany which is obviously much more important for the news than Bush.

In Iran the speech was considered as the next step of the coming military attacks against Iran.

I called one of my uncles in Teheran - who is definitivly one who dont like the mullahs - and he said that the part with Iran in Bush´s speech was extremely stupid and will only help the mullahs to get more support by the people and to get stronger in the inner-political fightings.

Also there are now rumors in Iran that the USA supports the MEK - an iranian terrorist organisation which once fought side by side with the arabs against iranians in the Iran-Iraq-War. They have military bases in Iraq and are now under US-control.

I just wait for western reports that these traitors are "true iranians" who want to liberate us.

Toad · « **Reply #33 on:** February 03, 2005, 10:10:33 AM »

Emotional hug electrifies speech

Quote

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The mother of a soldier killed in Iraq and the daughter of a man killed by Saddam Hussein's regime found some comfort in each other's arms in a private moment that electrified President George W. Bush's State of the Union address.

So... are you saying Iran has no nuke weapon program or that Iran has every right to have a nuke weapon program?

JB88 · « **Reply #34 on:** February 03, 2005, 10:19:19 AM »

nothin like good old fashioned theater is there?

babek- · « **Reply #35 on:** February 03, 2005, 10:22:49 AM »

Stupid german TV - that they didnt show the pictures of the women. But I am sure there will be a more detailed report in the 8pm news.

About Iran and its nuclear program:

As an iranian I am supporting the built-up for a civilian iranian nuclear technology.
We will loose in 30 years our main export item - then our oil will run out. So we need a modern technology to support our industry.

Also we need to depose the mullahs.

But this must be done by iranians in Iran and neither by foreigners nor by iranian terrorists or traitors.

The sad thing is that the actual US-policy had stabilized the mullah-regime and if there will be really an attack against iranian targets the mullahs will be stronger than ever before.
Then the iranians will support the government against foreigners and stop the inner political fightings.

I also fear the result of the iraqi elections.

If the iraqi shiites under command of the iranian Grand Ajatollah Sistani have won the elections there will be again problems for Iran because such a result would help the conservative shiites in Iran too.

Lets see what the future will bring.

Toad · « **Reply #36 on:** February 03, 2005, 10:41:32 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by JB88
nothin like good old fashioned theater is there?

Yeah, you're right. I'm sure Janet Norwood was forced to attend the SOTU address and I'm sure the Marine security guard next to her maced her at the appropriate moment to get those tears.

Undoubtedly, Safia Taleb al-Suhail was merely acting. I'm sure her every move was pre-scripted by the PNAC guys.

Btw, did you "

" when every President since (and including) Reagan has included folks like these in the SOTU audiences and singled them out to highlight a point in the speech?

If so, good for you.

slimm50 · « **Reply #37 on:** February 03, 2005, 10:41:42 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
Wait a second.... What?

Weapons of mass murder?

Is that what it is now?

Weapons of mass murder?

No matter how often he tries to reshape the language (and he does it all the time) it's still worth the same. Good example Toad, thanks for quoting it.

If he'd said "weapons of mass destruction", instead, you'd have no problem with it? I see no difference in the two: they're synonymous as far as I'm concerened. I see no evidence of trying to reshape or disguise anything. The guy's a straight-shooter.

JB88 · « **Reply #38 on:** February 03, 2005, 10:45:10 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad

Btw, did you "" when every President since (and including) Reagan has included folks like these in the SOTU audiences and singled them out to highlight a point in the speech?

oh, hell yes.

its THEATER! lol!

hey look at us! we brought the little people!

JB88 · « **Reply #39 on:** February 03, 2005, 10:49:13 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by slimm50
The guy's a straight-shooter.

(gagging)

Toad · « **Reply #40 on:** February 03, 2005, 10:49:46 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by babek-
:

As an iranian I am supporting the built-up for a civilian iranian nuclear technology.

And you can make the case that Iran needs bomb grade enriched uranium for civilian uses?

slimm50 · « **Reply #41 on:** February 03, 2005, 10:50:29 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by JB88
(gagging)

Something in yer craw?

JB88 · « **Reply #42 on:** February 03, 2005, 10:51:45 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by slimm50
Something in yer craw?

something deluded your basic sense of reasonable doubt?

(tapping on slimms skull)

ITS THEATER!

hello?!

tap tap tap

sigh.

Monk · « **Reply #43 on:** February 03, 2005, 10:51:47 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by babek-
In german news reports the speech of Bush was mentioned at 3rd or 4th place. It was said that Bush told the same as everytime (you know - this "We fight for democracy and freedom"-stuff) and that at the end there were two crying women or something like that. They showed no pictures - so I dont know what was meant with these women. Maybe the 8pm-news will show more details.

Actually there is a great soccer scandal in Germany which is obviously much more important for the news than Bush.

Explanation here.

Yeager · « **Reply #44 on:** February 03, 2005, 10:54:13 AM »

what some people call liberals, jefferson would have called americans.
====
Not the people I call liberals. Jefferson would have referred to them as vestiges of the old world left behind in pursuit of a more perfect union. Nice try though, not.