Members Verne Andru Posted April 20, 2006 Members Share Posted April 20, 2006 Personally I think Clinton should have gotten a medal or something for getting a BJ, not impeachment. But good, bad or otherwise if you don't impeach Dubya now you'll have to contend first with President Dick Cheney then with President Jeb Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Black Falcon Posted April 20, 2006 Members Share Posted April 20, 2006 Originally posted by CurtisM What the hell are you talking about? Did you read the article? Would a female president necessarily destroy the seperation of powers, politically divide America worse than any president in decades, get us into unnecessary war, erode civil rights, damage the enviroment, hurt the economy, etc? Well...if they manage to once again fix another election and get Condoleeza in, like they are gearing up to, then yes. She will be a puppet to the same puppeteers that are doing exactly that now. But...if we luck out and get Hilary in, like the Dems are gearing up to do, then we hopefully will see a return to Clinton-era goodness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Black Falcon Posted April 20, 2006 Members Share Posted April 20, 2006 Originally posted by Verne Andru Personally I think Clinton should have gotten a medal or something for getting a BJ, not impeachment. But good, bad or otherwise if you don't impeach Dubya now you'll have to contend first with President Dick Cheney then with President Jeb Bush. Bush is just the figurehead. The administration is pulling all the strings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members TrashFace Posted April 20, 2006 Members Share Posted April 20, 2006 Can't you look at every president and say they are the worst? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Verne Andru Posted April 20, 2006 Members Share Posted April 20, 2006 Originally posted by Black Falcon Bush is just the figurehead. The administration is pulling all the strings. Nice to see someone with some insight. One minor point of correction - the US Praetorian Guard pulls the administrations strings which pulls the puppets in turn. While impeachment won't do anything to solve the underlying systemic problems it will sufficiently cripple "their" adgenda for a while so the rest of humankind can take a bit of a breather. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Gristlefist Posted April 20, 2006 Members Share Posted April 20, 2006 Originally posted by Verne Andru Personally I think Clinton should have gotten a medal or something for getting a BJ, not impeachment. A BJ is it's own reward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Verne Andru Posted April 20, 2006 Members Share Posted April 20, 2006 Originally posted by Gristlefist A BJ is it's own reward. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Gristlefist Posted April 20, 2006 Members Share Posted April 20, 2006 Originally posted by Verne Andru Nice to see someone with some insight. One minor point of correction - the US Praetorian Guard pulls the administrations strings which pulls the puppets in turn. While impeachment won't do anything to solve the underlying systemic problems it will sufficiently cripple "their" adgenda for a while so the rest of humankind can take a bit of a breather. "Humankind"--exactly, because the Illuminati who pull the strings of the Praetorian Guard are actually controlled by the reptilian-humanoid aliens that they worship! See: www.davidicke.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members capnbringdown Posted April 20, 2006 Members Share Posted April 20, 2006 Originally posted by Gristlefist If you need to be miserable, why not think about China? France? Zimbabwe? North Korea? Well, I do like to be miserable. People have real problems there. Me, too, and not that I can't get a cab bullshit. You're just miserable because someone else has it good. That has nothing to do with my misery. Things are great, unless you're a Lefty--then you're still in denial and rage about losing the Cold War and seeing Socialism disproven. That's a NARCISSISTIC INJURY that's too much to bear. I thought the Republicans were mad about the US winning the cold war because they no longer have a constant enemy that could blow us up with nuclear weapons. Ooops, I guess Iran can now take their place. Really, if they weren't so sore about losing the cold war, maybe they wouldn't have tried to fight the war on terror in a way that was reminiscent of that. They did get old Rummy back into the picture.. After all, Lefties are supposed to be more intelligent and more compassionate than normal people. Facing the facts--that Socialism is stupid and hurts people So, what you're saying is that we should get rid of welfare? Or social security? Or some of those fine other programs that clearly weren't put into place because of capitalism? --is like sunlight to a vampire. I don't like sunlight, either. That's the reason for the Rolling Stone article. And talk about a credibility gap--the article doesn't even mention JIMMY CARTER! It doesn't mention Harrison or Garfield or Taft either. McKinley was a pretty bad president, and that's why he was shot. Johnson pretty much had his hands tied by everyone else in his administration because they didn't like him (but loved Lincoln), so he wasn't that great of a president either. And Grant was pretty bad. Though I disagree with saying Hoover was a bad president. Sure, he was a boob in office, but the depression wasn't his fault. There were a lot of things leading up to it, that probably couldn't have been prevented. It would have been nice if he hadn't sat on his ass, though. Then again, I disagree that FDR was one of our best presidents. Not saying he was a bad one, certainly not, though his four terms did always rub me the wrong way, but if you look at the outcome of his policies, you can see that after the money ran out to run his programs, the country went back into an economic recession. It only came out of it after WWII began, which means Hitler did quite a bit for this country becoming a world power. I guess what I'm trying to say is Happy 4/20. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jeremy Skrenes Posted April 20, 2006 Members Share Posted April 20, 2006 Personally I'd like to see either a republican congress and a democratic president or a democratic congress and a republican president. A little division of interests there would go a long way towards forcing us to work together. Think of it--why would Bush veto a bill that came to his desk from a republican congress? It would be political suicide for him and congress. Same goes if we had dems in both positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sonaboy Posted April 20, 2006 Members Share Posted April 20, 2006 Originally posted by Jeremy Skrenes Personally I'd like to see either a republican congress and a democratic president or a democratic congress and a republican president. A little division of interests there would go a long way towards forcing us to work together. Think of it--why would Bush veto a bill that came to his desk from a republican congress? It would be political suicide for him and congress. Same goes if we had dems in both positions. That's basically why Clinton's presidency was so successful. not that you'de ever get any partisan stooge to admit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Verne Andru Posted April 20, 2006 Members Share Posted April 20, 2006 Originally posted by Gristlefist "Humankind"--exactly, because the Illuminati who pull the strings of the Praetorian Guard are actually controlled by the reptilian-humanoid aliens that they worship! See: www.davidicke.com While I've read some of Icke's stuff that's not my reference. You can look a little closer to home in "War and Anti-War" by Alvin Toffler and "Tragedy and Hope" by Prof. Quigley to get a more realistic POV of what's going on. Tofflers book is an overview of the need to create a "third wave army" and if you read it then look at what has been going on you'll see the optics come into focus surprisingly well. And back in the 60's Quigley warned, with a great deal of accuracy as it turns out, of an encrouching "radical right" movement that threatens the "balance" in US and global politics. "Neo-Con" is just an updated moniker for Quigleys "radical right". I'm of the view that Rove-Bush-GOP have been able to harness the radical right to propell themselves to power. They are political opportunists, to be sure, but these "wars" are doing the opposite of the rhetoric [making America safe, spreading democracy, etc.]. The one thing no one can deny is that the military-industrial-complex has had it's best financial windfall ever under Dubya. These are the "puppet masters" and the only group that has achieved any benefit from all the misery, suffering, destruction and loss. When I speak of "humankind" all I'm referencing are the rest of the peoples of the world that are suffering as a consequence of the rather "misguided" foreign policies - and there are a lot of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Speeddemon Posted April 20, 2006 Members Share Posted April 20, 2006 I'm quite interested in what's the truth in the Praetorians, Illuminati or Skull&Bones club/society. I mean, we have Free Masons in Holland too, but they're just an elite club of THINKERS, not scheming politicians with their own hidden agenda's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Gristlefist Posted April 20, 2006 Members Share Posted April 20, 2006 Originally posted by capnbringdown I thought the Republicans were mad about the US winning the cold war because they no longer have a constant enemy that could blow us up with nuclear weapons. And then they took over the House, Senate, White House, a majority of State Houses and Governorships . . nah, they're not too upset. Originally posted by capnbringdown So, what you're saying is that we should get rid of welfare? That's a great example of a piece of Socialism that hurt people. That's why even Clinton had to agree to reform it. Originally posted by capnbringdown Or social security? As it's currently run, as a Ponzi scheme--yes. If it was a real pension plan or a compulsory 401(k), you'd still be messing with other peoples property, but it would at least make sense. Originally posted by capnbringdown Though I disagree with saying Hoover was a bad president. Sure, he was a boob in office, but the depression wasn't his fault. There were a lot of things leading up to it, that probably couldn't have been prevented. It would have been nice if he hadn't sat on his ass, though. Then again, I disagree that FDR was one of our best presidents. Not saying he was a bad one, certainly not, though his four terms did always rub me the wrong way, but if you look at the outcome of his policies, you can see that after the money ran out to run his programs, the country went back into an economic recession. It only came out of it after WWII began, which means Hitler did quite a bit for this country becoming a world power. From what I've read, Hoover and FDR were both protectionist and that's what created and sustained the Depression. Carter not only had his economic "malaise," he let the Mullah's take Iran (and take hostages) he let the Soviets take Afghanistan (and in retribution kept 14-year old girls who had spend their whole life in gymnastics from going to the olympics), and he let the Sandinista's take Nicaragua. Two of those events are among the root causes of 9/11, not that other presidents didn't contribute. Also, he was a wous. Originally posted by capnbringdown I guess what I'm trying to say is Happy 4/20. Likewise! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Gristlefist Posted April 20, 2006 Members Share Posted April 20, 2006 Originally posted by sonaboy That's basically why Clinton's presidency was so successful. not that you'de ever get any partisan stooge to admit it. And Reagan too, right? Actually, the way the Republicans are spending, I'm also thinking a little split govt would be a good thing--if there was a responsible second party for the Republicans to split it with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jeverist Posted April 20, 2006 Members Share Posted April 20, 2006 Lincoln was way worse than Bush. Let's review the record, shall we? Lincoln - - did NOT believe in equality for blacks, in fact he frequently said things like "But what shall we do with the Negroes after they are free? I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country with a good climate, which they could have to themselves." - was the first Republican president, forever leaving our country with the legacy of a bunch of heartless fat rich white bastards who couldn't care less about the common man. One of the things he did was to take away restrictions on the growth of corporations, paving the way for today's corporate feudalism. - suspended habeas corpus - instituted the first draft, allowing those rich enough to buy their way out. This draft was so hated it was met with riots so violent that made protests against Bush look like parades in comparison. - waged a unilateral war against the CSA, without the approval of the UN and didn't really give a fuck what the French or anyone else thought about it. - spent money on the war without seeking approval for the funds from Congress. - spent $0 for social security. Believed this should be left to private institutions. - Called abortion "infanticide" and demonized its practitioners. - like Reagan and Bush, Lincoln was deeply inspired by his faith, frequently invoked the name of God in his speeches, and had the audacity to base national policy on his religious beliefs! The nerve of these fundamentalists who oughta know where the church ends and the state begins! I could go on and on. But I believe I've made my point. Lincoln was a right wing fascist war-mongerer who in no way belongs at the top of the list of our greatest presidents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ChitownTerror Posted April 20, 2006 Members Share Posted April 20, 2006 I love how quickly Republicans abandon what principles they have as soon as power comes knocking. John McCain, I'm looking at you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members zachary vex Posted April 20, 2006 Members Share Posted April 20, 2006 he's at 33% today... and who's reporting? FOX. bwahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192468,00.html name one other member of the press corps that had "overnights" at the white house (and sure, delve into history researching this): Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Verne Andru Posted April 20, 2006 Members Share Posted April 20, 2006 Originally posted by Speeddemon I'm quite interested in what's the truth in the Praetorians, Illuminati or Skull&Bones club/society.I mean, we have Free Masons in Holland too, but they're just an elite club of THINKERS, not scheming politicians with their own hidden agenda's. Try and find an original [unedited] copy of Quigley's "Tragedy and Hope". He was/is an insider professor [Clinton was one of his students] and he apparently wrote that book in the 60's as an "insiders" history. When it started making it's way into general circulation the US government banned it and it has only recently been allowed for sale in the US, albeit in an edited version. Quigley traces the "group" from the mid-ish 1800 "round table" groups that formed in England and have since been established globally. These people, according to Quigley, are of the "white man's burden" mentality that believes they have a duty to force their views and ways of life on everybody and everything else. The Skull and Bones appear to be an offshoot. The earliest reference I've come up with to the Illuminati is that they were formed in the third century as the "esoteric" branch of the then recently legitimized Roman Catholic/Christian faith. As for their importance - in the middle ages Britain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sonaboy Posted April 20, 2006 Members Share Posted April 20, 2006 Originally posted by Gristlefist And Reagan too, right? Actually, the way the Republicans are spending, I'm also thinking a little split govt would be a good thing--if there was a responsible second party for the Republicans to split it with. Reagan signed onto too much debt. I don't consider his presidency to be successful, at least not on the scale the neo-cons are rewriting as real history, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sonaboy Posted April 20, 2006 Members Share Posted April 20, 2006 Originally posted by jeverist - did NOT believe in equality for blacks, in fact he frequently said things like "But what shall we do with the Negroes after they are free? I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country with a good climate, which they could have to themselves." - like Reagan and Bush, Lincoln was deeply inspired by his faith, frequently invoked the name of God in his speeches, and had the audacity to base national policy on his religious beliefs! The nerve of these fundamentalists who oughta know where the church ends and the state begins! I could go on and on. But I believe I've made my point. Lincoln was a right wing fascist war-mongerer who in no way belongs at the top of the list of our greatest presidents. sorta puts a whole new spin on how the neo-cons keep parroting the "Party of Lincoln" mantra, hoping to garner more votes from the black community. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ChitownTerror Posted April 20, 2006 Members Share Posted April 20, 2006 http://www.betterboyfriends.com/media/live_audio/the_president_64.mp3 A lot off topic, but I have to pimp the best satire/weird freaks to ever come from my alma mater, the Better Boyfriends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members zachary vex Posted April 20, 2006 Members Share Posted April 20, 2006 slight correction: China Mistakenly Called by Taiwan's Name1 hour, 17 minutes agoWASHINGTON - The meeting between President Bush and Chinese President Hu Jintao began with a gaffe Thursday when an announcer referred to China by the formal name of Taiwan, which China considers a rebellious province. ADVERTISEMENT As Bush and Hu stood at attention outside the White House, an announcer said, "Ladies and gentlemen, the national anthem of the Republic of China, followed by the national anthem of the United States of America." "Republic of China" is the formal name of the island 100 miles off the Chinese mainland. China is known formally as the People's Republic of China. Taiwan is a most delicate issue for China. Beijing claims sovereignty over the self-governing island, which split from the mainland in 1949 as civil war ended on the mainland. The losing nationalists fled the communists and established their rump state on the island and for many years claimed to be the rightful government of all China. Recent Taiwan governments have spoken of trying for formal independence, which China has said repeatedly might be met by military force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members karmacowboy67 Posted April 20, 2006 Members Share Posted April 20, 2006 Originally posted by Lanefair Geez I was joking. You Bush Haters really need to lighten up! If you think about it, everything is pretty much ok. No it really isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ScreamCage Posted April 20, 2006 Members Share Posted April 20, 2006 Originally posted by jasonfuzz Pffth, nuts to the president, I wanna read about the Confessions of Nick Lachey. This really seems like the most intelligent and well informed post in this entire thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.