George Bush

Love right back at ya, Melly. :)

melly wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Personally, I think all that "vets were abused" crap is just that--- crap. So a bunch of wussy hippies had nothing better to do than sit around airports all the time harassing trained killers? And these trained killers always flew commercial airliners when they returned from their tour of duty? Uh-huh.

That's just it though - they WERE abused, and not all of them were war machines. My dad in specific served in Libya and Vietnam in computer analyst outfits. He only touched a gun in boot camp. Regardless of their position in the war, no one shoould be treated with disrespect for doing their duty. If they wanted to show their displeasure and hatred for the war, why weren't they ballsy enough to spit on their elected officials? Why weren't they ballsy enough to throw bricks at their President?

And after all that? The men and women who came home not only were regarded as lowlifes for doing what they either had to or felt necessary to do - they wound up being forgotten by their government. I don't want that for any military personnel; to be beaten by not only their "enemy" but by their own people.

They've been using commercial airliners to ship home troops through many other "nobler" wars, not just the kind that are hated.

it may surprise you that yes australia too had troops in vietnam. yes they too were abused when they returned home. i don't know why this happened. many aussies were conscripted via lottery, and had no real choice in the matter.

it took 20 years after they returned that they actually had a welcome home parade.

yes there are australians currently in iraq and afgahnistan. i don't believe they should be there.

my gripe is not with our armed forces, but with those who sent them there. this is an important distinction to make.

Ronald Kirsch wrote:

melly wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Personally, I think all that "vets were abused" crap is just that--- crap. So a bunch of wussy hippies had nothing better to do than sit around airports all the time harassing trained killers? And these trained killers always flew commercial airliners when they returned from their tour of duty? Uh-huh.

That's just it though - they WERE abused, and not all of them were war machines. My dad in specific served in Libya and Vietnam in computer analyst outfits. He only touched a gun in boot camp. Regardless of their position in the war, no one shoould be treated with disrespect for doing their duty. If they wanted to show their displeasure and hatred for the war, why weren't they ballsy enough to spit on their elected officials? Why weren't they ballsy enough to throw bricks at their President?

And after all that? The men and women who came home not only were regarded as lowlifes for doing what they either had to or felt necessary to do - they wound up being forgotten by their government. I don't want that for any military personnel; to be beaten by not only their "enemy" but by their own people.

They've been using commercial airliners to ship home troops through many other "nobler" wars, not just the kind that are hated.

it may surprise you that yes australia too had troops in vietnam. yes they too were abused when they returned home. i don't know why this happened. many aussies were conscripted via lottery, and had no real choice in the matter.

it took 20 years after they returned that they actually had a welcome home parade.

yes there are australians currently in iraq and afgahnistan. i don't believe they should be there.

my gripe is not with our armed forces, but with those who sent them there. this is an important distinction to make.

Exactly.

And I really take issue with this nonsensical notion that in order to "support the troops" you must agree with the President. "Support the troops and "let the troops do their job" is just code for "Don't dissent."

How about this instead-- "The President is a lying arsewipe, and I will dissent his policies ever day" is entirely compatible with making sure the troops have the armor and other supplies they need to do their job (something the Administration never gave 2p about), and is entirely compatible with bringing them home safely.

Where is "All of the Above"?

Pretty easy to sit back in your safe European home and bitch about Bush. The Democrats gave us a pretty piss poor alternative with that fucktard Kerry.

nowhere is safe when someone retarded enough to believe in things sillier than your Holy FSM (his name be praised), has the big bombs under his fingers.

The man told lies The man ordered his staff to tell lies so that 10's thousands of young americans and Iraqi's could be slaughterd....and he could steal oil that did not belong to him. And you sacked the last guy for a blowjob.

And you sacked the last guy for a blowjob

I know, you just couldn't make it up

Bubba was not sacked, impeached but not sacked. He finished his term.

Clinton launched many a cruise missile, invaded Yugoslavia and stuck cigars up vaginas.

saves me the effort of pointing out the fact that both parties in the US are the same thing in the eyes of anyone from anywhere else on earth (that's the smattering of tiny island's off the us coast)

;)

Steve Campbell wrote: saves me the effort of pointing out the fact that both parties in the US are the same thing in the eyes of anyone from anywhere else on earth (that's the smattering of tiny island's off the us coast)

;)

don't ever make the mistake that saying that both parties are the same, not in the USA, not in the UK and not here. We are paying the price here for that now. I hope for your sake that the conservatives never regain power in the uk. trust me the conservatives now are not the same as they were. they are a whole lot nastier now.

i just can't wait for hillary to get in office... then we'll really be fucked...

johnny albrecht wrote: i just can't wait for hillary to get in office... then we'll really be fucked...

pray explain.

i think the Republicans are the ones behind the scenes pushing Hillary for president, cause they think they can beat her easily

Generic wrote:

pumped full of drugs wrote: i think the Republicans are the ones behind the scenes pushing Hillary for president, cause they think they can beat her easily

I'd vote for her, just to see if she could get an intern to go down on her in the White House...

but then again, I am easily amused!

so many people have HATRED for her thou, the election would be so devisive but entertaining

melly wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: :

That's just it though - they WERE abused, and not all of them were war machines.

Regardless of their position in the war, no one should be treated with disrespect for doing their duty.

Why weren't they ballsy enough to throw bricks at their President? don't want that for any military personnel; to be beaten by not only their "enemy" but by their own people.

They've been using commercial airliners to ship home troops through many other "nobler" wars, not just the kind that are hated.

Quality.

wars are bad news and decisions and actions that lead up to them are even more vile. Bush is a twat and a cnt because he is abusing the power invested in him.. and is, apparently, not looking to possibly constructive ways of addressing the mid -East. 2008, for the election, I hope comes quickly.

Ronald Kirsch wrote:

Steve Campbell wrote: saves me the effort of pointing out the fact that both parties in the US are the same thing in the eyes of anyone from anywhere else on earth (that's the smattering of tiny island's off the us coast)

;)

don't ever make the mistake that saying that both parties are the same, not in the USA, not in the UK and not here. We are paying the price here for that now. I hope for your sake that the conservatives never regain power in the uk. trust me the conservatives now are not the same as they were. they are a whole lot nastier now.

I observed no difference in the change from tories to labour here.....didn;t see any improved NHS, unions being unbanned OR anything being re-nationalized.....the logo was red tho, I suppose that may matter.

As for the US....OK the republicans are run by big oil and the baccy compaines....who lobbies the democrats.......greenpeace?

What was the reason New Order gave Bush to destroy Iraq?

I wish I could mess threads!

Steve Campbell wrote:

Ronald Kirsch wrote:

Steve Campbell wrote: US coast)

!

observed no difference in the change from tories to labour here..... As for the US....OK the republicans are run by big oil and the baccy compaines....who lobbies the democrats.......greenpeace?

who lobbies?maybe Maynards or Bassett-Trebor with the wine gum monopoly.

here's a case where I strongly hope that the usual melding of party policies does happen. and extremes mellow out.

here, last month, Canadians somehow voted in a Conservative minority gov't. apart from a Federal Acountabilty Act the platform was so far right that it was backwards. it will be good if the Acountability Act gives the transparency that it could and maybe it'll result in a better program.. have to wait and see.

Generic wrote:

Ronald Kirsch wrote:

johnny albrecht wrote: i just can't wait for hillary to get in office... then we'll really be fucked...

pray explain.

Come on Ron...you know how it is...when Hillary get's her first visit from the monthly visitor, she'll go straight for the bright red button...

I really hope that's not what was being inferred though.

just a little bit sexist there. are you sure you are a moderator?

Steve Campbell wrote:

Ronald Kirsch wrote:

Steve Campbell wrote: saves me the effort of pointing out the fact that both parties in the US are the same thing in the eyes of anyone from anywhere else on earth (that's the smattering of tiny island's off the us coast)

;)

don't ever make the mistake that saying that both parties are the same, not in the USA, not in the UK and not here. We are paying the price here for that now. I hope for your sake that the conservatives never regain power in the uk. trust me the conservatives now are not the same as they were. they are a whole lot nastier now.

I observed no difference in the change from tories to labour here.....didn;t see any improved NHS, unions being unbanned OR anything being re-nationalized.....the logo was red tho, I suppose that may matter.

you may not have seen much change when labour got in, but let me assure you you will see change if the Tories get back in. just a few points.

.flogging off anything that hasn't already been sold .a crackdown on the welfare sector .a further deregulation of the economy (read a further crackdown on unionism). .a liberalisation of the labour market (read strip workers of their entitlements). that's just for starters.

trust me that's what we are going through here, and people thought there was no real difference between the parties.

JW wrote:

Steve Campbell wrote:

Ronald Kirsch wrote:

Steve Campbell wrote: US coast)

!

observed no difference in the change from tories to labour here..... As for the US....OK the republicans are run by big oil and the baccy compaines....who lobbies the democrats.......greenpeace?

who lobbies?maybe Maynards or Bassett-Trebor with the wine gum monopoly.

---

here's a case where I strongly hope that the usual melding of party policies does happen. and extremes mellow out.

here, last month, Canadians somehow voted in a Conservative minority gov't. apart from a Federal Acountabilty Act the platform was so far right that it was backwards. it will be good if the Acountability Act gives the transparency that it could and maybe it'll result in a better program.. have to wait and see.

Maybe the democrats (does that name not mean the other party are opposed to democracy?) are lobbied (and therefor run) by (as you say) sweetie companies...or by birds and trees and pretty flowers.

The parties...particularly in the US are an illusion, to maintain the illusion of democratic choice itself.

Steve Campbell wrote:

JW wrote:

Steve Campbell wrote:

Ronald Kirsch wrote:

Steve Campbell wrote: US coast)

!

no difference democrats.......greenpeace?

---

The parties...particularly in the US are an illusion, to maintain the illusion of democratic choice itself.

nice thought but here, also hope that it's wrong. and that John McCain does successfully run for, and win, the US election 2008.

now if he'd go out and listen to PCL ..

melly wrote: *dodges any and all incoming bombs towards her domicle from her assertation of her opinion beforehand*

I voted for Bush. My parents went through Vietnam under a far worse President (who was from Texas!)

nixon was from texas?

it was under the nixon administration that the war expanded into cambodia and the number of troops increased in vietnam. it was also under this administration that the most violent anti-war protests took place (kent state, for example). and to think that the man ran on a platform promising that he would bring an end to the war and begin the process of demilitarization in the late 1960s.

Good