Post Here To Show Support For Bush

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Hello!? How can all news media that is 90% owned by only 5 media giants be liberal?

What does corporate ownership have to do with whether the media is liberal or not? Corporate ownership is irrelevant.

‘Corporations’ aren’t inherently conservative, or I should say, non-lefty.

Do you really think these are liberal companies? The largest media holdings company though not exclusively media is GE (they own NBC and Sony with a $80 billion marketshare). Again, I ask you is this a company with liberal leanings?

Why wouldn’t they be? I am not claiming they are liberal or not - but why would you automatically assume the corporations would tilt right?

George Soros has more money than all of us put together - and almost single handedly annhiliated England’s bank. He is an unapologetic market raider, and yet is wildly left of center.

And the Left is supposedly the self-appointed stewards of Reason? Awful.

The mere existence of corporate structure and millions of dollars of profit is in no way, shape, or form indicative of political leanings. If you need further edification - go see how much money Hollywood bankrolls every year. The existence of our entertainment industry is an indisputable refutation of your silly claim.

If anything MSM is dumbed-down for redneck (read, unsophisticated), middle America and that is where the bigest bias is laid. It’s because the general public is too lazy or too stupid to think for themsleves so they rely on MSM to give them all information (and accept what they are told) instead of finding out for themselves (or scrutinizing what they are being told).

So predictable. Every leftist in the house can’t wait to shout from the rooftops how ‘middle America’ is a bunch of stupid cattle and how in contrast, the self-satisfied Leftist is the proud Enlightened one.

Number one - is there any real reason folks wonder why the Left cannot win an election, when the Democratic Party claims to be the representative of the ‘common man’ while having this vicious view of the selfsame ‘common man’ they claim to champion?

If only - if only - we could put a couple of the ‘common men’ in the same room with these insufferable left-wing snobs for five minutes alone.

Number two - get out and meet ‘middle America’. And then get back to me. I have criticism of some of the more banal aspects of American society, but the assumption that middle America is patently stupid is nothing more than a transparent opportunity to make yourself feel better about yourself. [/quote]

I’ve met “middle America”. They like NASCAR and they think Dubya’s doing a heckuva job. They think The DaVinci Code is literature and Iraq had something to do with 9/11.

They consider the Olive Garden an acceptable place to eat and agree with Sean Hannity.

Toby Keith’s a great songwriter in “middle America” but Tom Waits doesn’t sell many albums.

Middle America is full of fucking retards.

82

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Professor X wrote:

Gee, I think the point is that if they were so influential, how did a Republican president get elected twice? What exactly are you complaining about? Either the media is VERY influential and not as liberal as you all whine about it being…or it is not very influential at all and no one is really listening to how liberal you claim they are.

This isn’t really true. It depends on your baseline – if the baseline is really more conservative than liberal, but the media makes the elections closer than they would be otherwise, even if they don’t change the outcome.

In this country, registered Dems run around 25% and registered Republicans run around 34% - so there is assumedly less ground that needs to be won by Republicans. However, the elections have been closer to 50% – media influence? Maybe, maybe not – but you can’t simply dismiss it based on the election results.[/quote]

And you can’t simply imply it just to complain about something when no political outcome supports it.

83

[quote]harris447 wrote:
I’ve met “middle America”. They like NASCAR and they think Dubya’s doing a heckuva job. They think The DaVinci Code is literature and Iraq had something to do with 9/11.

They consider the Olive Garden an acceptable place to eat and agree with Sean Hannity.

Toby Keith’s a great songwriter in “middle America” but Tom Waits doesn’t sell many albums.

Middle America is full of fucking retards.

[/quote]

How dare you…present the truth like that.

84

[quote]orion wrote:
JeffR wrote:
orion wrote:
JeffR wrote:

“Couldn’t defeat W” means during the elections.

That’s my new strategy, repost and state the obvious.

Maybe, just maybe…

I do that sometimes…

Guantanamo…

Guantanamo, Guantanamo, Guantanamo…

Geneva Convention, Geneva Convention, Geneva Convention…

Geneva, Geneva, Geneva Convention…

I would not expect to convince anyone though…

Hey orion,

Thanks for chiming in.

I wanted to let you know the practical implication of the Supreme Court Ruling.

Bad Guys: “I surrender.”

Good Guys: Squeeze trigger.

JeffR

Well, that will help with the data-mining…

I mean they could react in a zillion different ways, like getting competent agents on the ground, but if shoot first ask questions later is all they will come up with…

… well, we are all fucked anyway.

Islam terrorism has won the war of ideas and ideals, lets dig a hole in the ground and hide…

300 billion sunk in Iraq and that is the ultimate answer: Boom, you?re dead.

My one time super-special- pro- US-conservative-offer:

Give me 100 billion and I find a better way. Not a perfect one, just something not incredibly stupid. 50 for me, 50 to implement it…

The fact that I actually could, should give you nightmares…

Alas it does not, Go Bush, Go…
[/quote]

Hey, Mr. Anschluss:

It truly gets old being lectured by someone from a collaborator country.

You don’t think this war is serious. Therefore, you are up in arms about the treatment of terrorists.

Your first post indicates you think you earned some sort of victory with the Administration giving Geneva convention protection to non-uniformed, non-civilized, scumbags.

What will happen, guaranteed, is that there will be fewer captures. There will be less on the ground intelligence. More of the slime that you hope you’ve pressured us into “protecting” will die.

Great job. You showed us how the “civilized world” should operate.

In the meantime, terrorists will be afforded far more sweeping rights than they GIVE TO OUR CAPTURED SOLDIERS.

You won’t understand this (or maybe you will, given your countrymen volunteered for the armies of darkness) but, this war must have a brutal edge to defeat the murderous savages that our country is fighting.

So, in summary, I want you to think how your countrymen treated your prisoners at mathausen.

Then think twice about lecturing us about the “air conditioning.”

JeffR

85

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
A few quick thoughts on Bush:

  1. He has not been the leader we need during a serious war against Islamism.

  2. He has presided over a government of bad laws - regardless of their substance, it’s like he and the Republican Congress will pass any piece of trash presented. That is bad stewardship, regardless of party.

But - would I have voted differently given the same choices in 2004? No, because at least Bush sees our fight against Islamism in the correct terms.

And, something else that needs to reiterated - should the GOP lose the House or even the 2008 election, there is absolutely no one else to blame other than the GOP itself. It will be because the GOP has not governed well and lost touch with the vast majority of the middle-class-ish vote, which the current crop of politicians most certainly have.

It won’t be because the Democrats stole an election or that Democrats put the people under some kind of groupthink trance that tricked them into voting against their interests or any of the other usual scapegoats the Left has proffered in response to being resigned to the political wilderness. It won’t be a conspiracy or propaganda, it won’t be the Jewish lobby.

If the GOP loses, it’s because they blew it when they fell victim to the same excesses they rebelled against in 1994.

One of the biggest weaknesses of the Democratic party - nay, the biggest - is the assigning of blame to some other external force as to why they lost a given election. It is never their fault. Democrats have really yet to sober up and say “you know, our ideas and/or our leaders just don’t resonate with the voting public - we need to reform” - there is always the excuse that the Democrats’ ideas are ideologically pure and flawless, but someone keeps them out of power by cheating.

The GOP - like the Democrats of the past 10 years - have no one to blame but themselves should they lose.[/quote]

Great post. Hard to argue with any of this. But, given the choice again in 2004, couldn’t vote for Kerry, but it would have been hard to do worse than Bush. I generally don’t believe in protest votes, but I guess on balance I probably would have voted libertarian had I known then what I know now.

86

[quote]JeffR wrote:
orion wrote:
JeffR wrote:
orion wrote:
JeffR wrote:

“Couldn’t defeat W” means during the elections.

That’s my new strategy, repost and state the obvious.

Maybe, just maybe…

I do that sometimes…

Guantanamo…

Guantanamo, Guantanamo, Guantanamo…

Geneva Convention, Geneva Convention, Geneva Convention…

Geneva, Geneva, Geneva Convention…

I would not expect to convince anyone though…

Hey orion,

Thanks for chiming in.

I wanted to let you know the practical implication of the Supreme Court Ruling.

Bad Guys: “I surrender.”

Good Guys: Squeeze trigger.

JeffR

Well, that will help with the data-mining…

I mean they could react in a zillion different ways, like getting competent agents on the ground, but if shoot first ask questions later is all they will come up with…

… well, we are all fucked anyway.

Islam terrorism has won the war of ideas and ideals, lets dig a hole in the ground and hide…

300 billion sunk in Iraq and that is the ultimate answer: Boom, you?re dead.

My one time super-special- pro- US-conservative-offer:

Give me 100 billion and I find a better way. Not a perfect one, just something not incredibly stupid. 50 for me, 50 to implement it…

The fact that I actually could, should give you nightmares…

Alas it does not, Go Bush, Go…

Hey, Mr. Anschluss:

It truly gets old being lectured by someone from a collaborator country.

You don’t think this war is serious. Therefore, you are up in arms about the treatment of terrorists.

Your first post indicates you think you earned some sort of victory with the Administration giving Geneva convention protection to non-uniformed, non-civilized, scumbags.

What will happen, guaranteed, is that there will be fewer captures. There will be less on the ground intelligence. More of the slime that you hope you’ve pressured us into “protecting” will die.

Great job. You showed us how the “civilized world” should operate.

In the meantime, terrorists will be afforded far more sweeping rights than they GIVE TO OUR CAPTURED SOLDIERS.

You won’t understand this (or maybe you will, given your countrymen volunteered for the armies of darkness) but, this war must have a brutal edge to defeat the murderous savages that our country is fighting.

So, in summary, I want you to think how your countrymen treated your prisoners at mathausen.

Then think twice about lecturing us about the “air conditioning.”

JeffR

[/quote]

What the hell are you trying to say, aside from taking a cheap shot at a foreigner for crimes that happened when his own parents were still probably in the womb? Did it ever occur to you that America should be different, that we should never judge ourselves by the actions and standards of our enemies, but by our own standards as a country that aspires to be Winthrop’s and Reagan’s “shining city on a hill”?

There’s a conservative position for you, one that Bush threw aside in a desperate attempt to get basic intelligence on the ground in a war he and his Pentagon royally fucked up.

87

[quote]Professor X wrote:
harris447 wrote:
I’ve met “middle America”. They like NASCAR and they think Dubya’s doing a heckuva job. They think The DaVinci Code is literature and Iraq had something to do with 9/11.

They consider the Olive Garden an acceptable place to eat and agree with Sean Hannity.

Toby Keith’s a great songwriter in “middle America” but Tom Waits doesn’t sell many albums.

Middle America is full of fucking retards.

How dare you…present the truth like that.[/quote]

That’s pretty elitist, especially with Bush’s ratings in Carter territory.

88

[quote]sactown1 wrote:
Lets talk about the war on terror, you know what i am tired of is that bush supporters always invoke the “war on terrorism” to justify any overreach in power by the president, if the president does have these so-called “emergency powers” which are at the best questionable, where do we draw the line how much power does the president have?

President Bush said that the war on terror “will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.” The question is when will this war end, or will it ever end. If this war never ends will the president have indefinate emergency powers, which means almost any action taken by the president is justified because we are at war. the president contends that his war powers cannot be restrained by any law because he is the “commander-in-chief” and he needs to protect us from the terrorists.

After the Reichstag fire Hitler also declared a state of emergency and told the people of germany that the communists were taking over and effectively used the threat of communism to transform Germany from a democracy into a dictatorship. What is common in between these two leaders is that both of them use fear to justify more and more consolidation of power. Now I am not saying that George Bush wants to use the war on terror to create a perpetual state of emergency to become a dictator, but there is always a threat there, because this perpetual war on terror has been declared we must be very cautious in the amount of power we give to any leader whoever it may be a conservative or a liberal.[/quote]

Don’t like your Nazi analogy, that’s MoveOn/Michael Moore hysteria territory, but you’re absolutely right in your broader point.

89

[quote]harris447 wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Hello!? How can all news media that is 90% owned by only 5 media giants be liberal?

What does corporate ownership have to do with whether the media is liberal or not? Corporate ownership is irrelevant.

‘Corporations’ aren’t inherently conservative, or I should say, non-lefty.

Do you really think these are liberal companies? The largest media holdings company though not exclusively media is GE (they own NBC and Sony with a $80 billion marketshare). Again, I ask you is this a company with liberal leanings?

Why wouldn’t they be? I am not claiming they are liberal or not - but why would you automatically assume the corporations would tilt right?

George Soros has more money than all of us put together - and almost single handedly annhiliated England’s bank. He is an unapologetic market raider, and yet is wildly left of center.

And the Left is supposedly the self-appointed stewards of Reason? Awful.

The mere existence of corporate structure and millions of dollars of profit is in no way, shape, or form indicative of political leanings. If you need further edification - go see how much money Hollywood bankrolls every year. The existence of our entertainment industry is an indisputable refutation of your silly claim.

If anything MSM is dumbed-down for redneck (read, unsophisticated), middle America and that is where the bigest bias is laid. It’s because the general public is too lazy or too stupid to think for themsleves so they rely on MSM to give them all information (and accept what they are told) instead of finding out for themselves (or scrutinizing what they are being told).

So predictable. Every leftist in the house can’t wait to shout from the rooftops how ‘middle America’ is a bunch of stupid cattle and how in contrast, the self-satisfied Leftist is the proud Enlightened one.

Number one - is there any real reason folks wonder why the Left cannot win an election, when the Democratic Party claims to be the representative of the ‘common man’ while having this vicious view of the selfsame ‘common man’ they claim to champion?

If only - if only - we could put a couple of the ‘common men’ in the same room with these insufferable left-wing snobs for five minutes alone.

Number two - get out and meet ‘middle America’. And then get back to me. I have criticism of some of the more banal aspects of American society, but the assumption that middle America is patently stupid is nothing more than a transparent opportunity to make yourself feel better about yourself.

I’ve met “middle America”. They like NASCAR and they think Dubya’s doing a heckuva job. They think The DaVinci Code is literature and Iraq had something to do with 9/11.

They consider the Olive Garden an acceptable place to eat and agree with Sean Hannity.

Toby Keith’s a great songwriter in “middle America” but Tom Waits doesn’t sell many albums.

Middle America is full of fucking retards.

[/quote]

People in Jersey should not throw stones.

90

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
sactown1 wrote:
Lets talk about the war on terror, you know what i am tired of is that bush supporters always invoke the “war on terrorism” to justify any overreach in power by the president, if the president does have these so-called “emergency powers” which are at the best questionable, where do we draw the line how much power does the president have?

President Bush said that the war on terror “will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.” The question is when will this war end, or will it ever end. If this war never ends will the president have indefinate emergency powers, which means almost any action taken by the president is justified because we are at war. the president contends that his war powers cannot be restrained by any law because he is the “commander-in-chief” and he needs to protect us from the terrorists.

After the Reichstag fire Hitler also declared a state of emergency and told the people of germany that the communists were taking over and effectively used the threat of communism to transform Germany from a democracy into a dictatorship. What is common in between these two leaders is that both of them use fear to justify more and more consolidation of power. Now I am not saying that George Bush wants to use the war on terror to create a perpetual state of emergency to become a dictator, but there is always a threat there, because this perpetual war on terror has been declared we must be very cautious in the amount of power we give to any leader whoever it may be a conservative or a liberal.

Don’t like your Nazi analogy, that’s MoveOn/Michael Moore hysteria territory, but you’re absolutely right in your broader point.[/quote]

No he is not. It is utter nonsense. Our system of checks and balances is alive and well and working.

91

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
harris447 wrote:
I’ve met “middle America”. They like NASCAR and they think Dubya’s doing a heckuva job. They think The DaVinci Code is literature and Iraq had something to do with 9/11.

They consider the Olive Garden an acceptable place to eat and agree with Sean Hannity.

Toby Keith’s a great songwriter in “middle America” but Tom Waits doesn’t sell many albums.

Middle America is full of fucking retards.

How dare you…present the truth like that.

That’s pretty elitist, especially with Bush’s ratings in Carter territory.[/quote]

It may be, but I generally don’t believe the average American digs any deeper for info than what is told to them by shock radio hosts on the way to work. In fact, I am surprised it took THAT LONG for his approval rating to drop like it has.

92

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
sactown1 wrote:
Lets talk about the war on terror, you know what i am tired of is that bush supporters always invoke the “war on terrorism” to justify any overreach in power by the president, if the president does have these so-called “emergency powers” which are at the best questionable, where do we draw the line how much power does the president have?

President Bush said that the war on terror “will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.” The question is when will this war end, or will it ever end. If this war never ends will the president have indefinate emergency powers, which means almost any action taken by the president is justified because we are at war. the president contends that his war powers cannot be restrained by any law because he is the “commander-in-chief” and he needs to protect us from the terrorists.

After the Reichstag fire Hitler also declared a state of emergency and told the people of germany that the communists were taking over and effectively used the threat of communism to transform Germany from a democracy into a dictatorship. What is common in between these two leaders is that both of them use fear to justify more and more consolidation of power. Now I am not saying that George Bush wants to use the war on terror to create a perpetual state of emergency to become a dictator, but there is always a threat there, because this perpetual war on terror has been declared we must be very cautious in the amount of power we give to any leader whoever it may be a conservative or a liberal.

Don’t like your Nazi analogy, that’s MoveOn/Michael Moore hysteria territory, but you’re absolutely right in your broader point.

No he is not. It is utter nonsense. Our system of checks and balances is alive and well and working.
[/quote]

Really? Have you read some of the John Yoo and Justice Department memos on torture and the President’s right to detain “enemy combatants,” even when they’re US citizens?

93

[quote]vroom wrote:
JeffR wrote:
That’s my new strategy, repost and state the obvious.

Strategy? New? How can any one… no wait Steveo is right up there too… oh never mind.

The axis of ignorance is alive and well.[/quote]

Vroom “logic” = If I disagree with you, then you are:

a) An idiot
b) A fool
c) Ignorant
d) Any many other choice words that usuall have 4 letters in them.

Notice how he never can refute the facts though.

Bush wasn’t defeated and the conservatives will not be defeated by the leftists in 2008. There is too much at stake to give the country’s helm to a weak, inept, ‘lefty.’

Never will happen and I will be here to remind all of you when it does.

94

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Gregus wrote:
danmaftei wrote:
I’d just like to point out that if one person says Bush is a good president because he sticks to his guns and never flops I will kill you via e-mail anthrax. Lest we forget, Hitler stuck to his guns also. There’s nothing wrong with changing your mind. In fact, in the complex world of politics, it would be ridiculous over an 8-year collective term not to change your viewpoints.

With that said, I thoroughly dislike Bush, but given our other option, I can’t say one’s all that better than the other.

You know I’m glad you said that. People that stick to their guns are usually equippend with bricks for brains. I don’t know why, i mean i know why, i just don’t get this whole never admitting you’re wrong thing or changing your mind or views. Entirely too rigid a logic system for me.

I’m sure glad President Reagan “stuck to his guns” on the cold war issue. The former Soviet Union collapsed! The liberals attacked him then as a war monger.

And the Berlin wall came down…

Also, remember when all the liberals were crying that they wanted a “nuclear freeze?”

It’s actually funny now. But good thing we didn’t listen to them.

Hmm…I’m trying to think about the last time the liberals were actually correct on an important topic…Okay, I’ll have to get back to you on that one.

:slight_smile:

How about the ousting of Milosevicj? A brutal dictator who commited genocide and ethnic cleansing. Clinton got him out without 1 single US soldier getting killed.
Compare that to Bush’s record.

Also, remember the Republicans fought him every step of the way.
It took them years to change their mind. Now they’re convinced they did good by removing Saddam.
2 differences though. The oil. And the blood.[/quote]

Er, have you forgotten Somolia?

95

g dol wrote:

g dol, do you ever tire of the rank hypocrisy of people from places like Austria lecturing us?

I’m not talking hundreds of years, I’m talking of genocide within living memory.

If you are willing to excuse every cheap shot artist and hypocrite that tees off at the expense of your country, then that is your problem. Oh, before you try and trot out that “I’m a dissatisfied Bush voter”
crap and “orion isn’t talking about me” save the key-strokes. A guy like orion, would happily think of a way to trash things you find near and dear.

Countries with so much blood on their hands should not take a “holier than thou” approach to the United States.
One gets the sense, sometimes, that some of these countries live in massive denial about their recent past.

If they want to make constructive suggestions and offer support, they are more than welcome.

However, if they (like orion) become sanctimonious pricks, then they need to be reminded.

I want you to try and think this concept through: This is a very serious war. “The quiet dogmas of the past are inadequate to the stormy present.” You and I can debate theory and what is the ideal world, but, it doesn’t change the fact that our country is up against one of the most vicious, murderous, group of savages that it has ever faced.

I honestly am not going to take the time to try and convince you. However, know that serious war demands a different set of rules.

Actually, this is one point where you and I could find some common ground.

However, I think it’s time to look forward.

I’m beginning to think that the war effort needs to become more heavy handed.

JeffR

96

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Er, have you forgotten Somolia?[/quote]

Somolia? Is that the country where they hid all the nucular weapons?

97

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
harris447 wrote:
I’ve met “middle America”. They like NASCAR and they think Dubya’s doing a heckuva job. They think The DaVinci Code is literature and Iraq had something to do with 9/11.

They consider the Olive Garden an acceptable place to eat and agree with Sean Hannity.

Toby Keith’s a great songwriter in “middle America” but Tom Waits doesn’t sell many albums.

Middle America is full of fucking retards.

How dare you…present the truth like that.

That’s pretty elitist, especially with Bush’s ratings in Carter territory.[/quote]

And such elitism would at least be believable, if still silly, if it was coming from some from of the brighter bulbs around here. Nope.

The Left continues to do exactly what it accuses small-town backwater conservatives of doing.

98

[quote]JeffR wrote:
In the meantime, terrorists will be afforded far more sweeping rights than they GIVE TO OUR CAPTURED SOLDIERS.[/quote]

Yeah, being the “good guys” is a lot harder than being the evil bastard scum bags. Rules, principles, morals and all that annoying high-brow stuff.

If you sink to their level, how does the world tell you apart?

“I’ll take World Countries for 500$ Alex.”

“This country imprisons with no trial, uses torture, spies on it’s citizens and ignores internation conventions and U.N. resolutions.”

“What is Iraq, Alex.”

“No, the answer is ‘What is the United States’, sorry Ken.”

99

[quote]JeffR wrote:
orion wrote:
JeffR wrote:
orion wrote:
JeffR wrote:

“Couldn’t defeat W” means during the elections.

That’s my new strategy, repost and state the obvious.

Maybe, just maybe…

I do that sometimes…

Guantanamo…

Guantanamo, Guantanamo, Guantanamo…

Geneva Convention, Geneva Convention, Geneva Convention…

Geneva, Geneva, Geneva Convention…

I would not expect to convince anyone though…

Hey orion,

Thanks for chiming in.

I wanted to let you know the practical implication of the Supreme Court Ruling.

Bad Guys: “I surrender.”

Good Guys: Squeeze trigger.

JeffR

Well, that will help with the data-mining…

I mean they could react in a zillion different ways, like getting competent agents on the ground, but if shoot first ask questions later is all they will come up with…

… well, we are all fucked anyway.

Islam terrorism has won the war of ideas and ideals, lets dig a hole in the ground and hide…

300 billion sunk in Iraq and that is the ultimate answer: Boom, you?re dead.

My one time super-special- pro- US-conservative-offer:

Give me 100 billion and I find a better way. Not a perfect one, just something not incredibly stupid. 50 for me, 50 to implement it…

The fact that I actually could, should give you nightmares…

Alas it does not, Go Bush, Go…

Hey, Mr. Anschluss:

It truly gets old being lectured by someone from a collaborator country.

You don’t think this war is serious. Therefore, you are up in arms about the treatment of terrorists.

Your first post indicates you think you earned some sort of victory with the Administration giving Geneva convention protection to non-uniformed, non-civilized, scumbags.

What will happen, guaranteed, is that there will be fewer captures. There will be less on the ground intelligence. More of the slime that you hope you’ve pressured us into “protecting” will die.

Great job. You showed us how the “civilized world” should operate.

In the meantime, terrorists will be afforded far more sweeping rights than they GIVE TO OUR CAPTURED SOLDIERS.

You won’t understand this (or maybe you will, given your countrymen volunteered for the armies of darkness) but, this war must have a brutal edge to defeat the murderous savages that our country is fighting.

So, in summary, I want you to think how your countrymen treated your prisoners at mathausen.

Then think twice about lecturing us about the “air conditioning.”

JeffR

[/quote]

First, we were not collaborators, we were part of the Third Reich, knowingly and willingly.

Second, POWs never went to Mauthausen, only dissenting Austrians did, western POW were never held in concentration camp like institutions, only Russian and other Slaw soldiers were.

At least western soldiers were held Geneva Convention style, if the Nazis could do it, for much larger numbers, the US cant?

Third, your insinuation that all prisoners held in Guantanamo are “terrorists” is only that, an insinuation, that was sold to a scared public.

We will see what they are, after they get their fair trial.

And last but not least, I do not like your whole premisse that we have to give up every tiny bit of civilization, just to fight a few stone age warriors.

You want to be radical? Then what do you think of this:

The war on drugs is obviously not working, yet it costs 40 billion a year .

What about stopping that and use the money to get some Arab and Farsi speaking men on the ground.

What if we did NOT fire Arab speaking translators if they were openly gay?

Those two things alone would do more for the safety of the US than Guantanamo ever could, but the war on weed and gays is so much more important than to uphold at least the decorum of a civilized nation?

100

[quote]JeffR wrote:

If you are willing to excuse every cheap shot artist and hypocrite that tees off at the expense of your country, then that is your problem. Oh, before you try and trot out that “I’m a dissatisfied Bush voter”
crap and “orion isn’t talking about me” save the key-strokes. A guy like orion, would happily think of a way to trash things you find near and dear.

Countries with so much blood on their hands should not take a “holier than thou” approach to the United States.
One gets the sense, sometimes, that some of these countries live in massive denial about their recent past.

JeffR

[/quote]

What is so tragically ironic is that your attitute makes fascism possible.

Yeah,freedom and Democracy are one thing but people need work and the Bolshevists are in the East ready to attack…

Let us not look backwards but forwards, let us give our Leader the means to fight these Evils, let us forge strong alliances with Italy and Japan…