lol, you guys are great. island, you're in :D and Denis, heck at least I can expect to have an honorable argument with you. I'll buy the first round fellas.

Does this mean telemaketing is owned by the phone company? ;)

OK I give up! Who is it?

RJ Reynolds owns Nabisco not Philip Morris.

Let's see now if the French were occuping Iraq wouldn't they be giving monopolistic contracts to the likes of Haliburton? Or are they so Altruistic? They are about as altruistic as are the Germans, Japanese, Chinese and every other country I can think of. Geez the only guy out there who is altrusitic...and puts his money where his mouth is, by living in a cave in Bum FK Pakistan is Osma Bin Laden. Liberals would probably champion his cause exfcept that he believes in Gawd and would creat a state where religious principles would be applied to the affairs of state.


For those of a Liberal slant I hate to tell you by living in America you are THE OPPRESSORS in the world....your government does dirty things in your name so that you can keep that Porsche in the garage. You thought that out of your Good Looks or Gawd given rights you got that Porsche dream on...and your arguement has been I didn't sign off on that kind of thing, I have oposed that kind of thing...yeah well don't take the reward for those dirty deeds...go live in Teddy Kozinskis shack in Idaho. Then I'll believe you. Until then support the country that puts Bread on your table, cause if you don't there is someone in another country that sure would like to take it from you and have your Porsche in the house you used to live in.

Your Americans, and your government is doing the best it can for you...somtimes it might not be pretty, has to make do with what it has, makes blunders, and is operated by human beings with all their flaws... but we live in the Real World and Polly Anna was only a movie.

So, in summary, here are The Rules:

• The government knows best.
• If it appears that the government is fscking things up, you just don't understand the situation. See #1
• If it wasn't for the government, you wouldn't have ___________.
• Shut the f*ck up and do what the government tells you to do, you whiney liberal.

Even better, we have the Patriot Act, and soon, Patriot II, to put some teeth in these rules.

Oh, and while we're at it, we're gonna need another $80B, thanks...

The government....in this case the Bush Administration is fking things up according to who? The Liberal Media, the Democratic Party Presidential hopefuls... They have axes to grind and papers to sell.

Three months is going to wash away 30 years of Gangsterism in Iraq, what you want is the situation to be all wrapped up nice and pretty in 30 minutes so you can watch the next sitcom on TV? Bin Laden musta bin talking about you...being weak and not having the minerals to see things through. What if we had something really tough to do...like pick up the bodies off the street of a major American city...Oh we allready did that you say..well what if it happens again...Bush says it would be a "disruption to the economy" polite way of saying Depression, a Stock Market analyst from Prudential says the Stock Market will continue to rise barring another Terrorist Attack.... meaning the economy will be getting better...unless....So that 87 Billion seems cheap now if it keeps you working...so you can pay the new CA taxes that the Liberal Democrats are going to impose.

"The government knows best.

If it appears that the government is fscking things up, you just don't understand the situation. See #1

If it wasn't for the government, you wouldn't have ___________.

Shut the f*ck up and do what the government tells you to do, you whiney liberal."

That is a very funny statement and also VERY ironic coming from a liberal. Remind me to throw that one back at ya when I question the next entitlement program DC comes up with. Or how about socialized health care? I am glad to hear that we agree they DON"T know best. Our government was designed to do essentially one thing and do it well, PROTECT US! Read the founding papers.

So how on earth did those members in New Zealand get their Porsches? :confused:

And I won't even mention the 911s I saw in Paris. :D

Why, selling cheese and chocolate, of course. :D ;)

Jobs were being lost before the election. Everyone forgets the crash started in Sept. 2000.

It's pretty low-hanging fruit and completely passe to blame Bush for jobs lost. He wasn't the cause, ridiculous investment in phantom economies was the cause - particularly tech. Couple that with corporate greed, illegal accounting, stolen pensions and 401Ks during Clinton's administration, and there you have it. If a captain needs to be blamed, it should be Clinton for more or less kissing Greenspan's hiney then turning the other way when Greenspan warned of the exuberance running rampant through Wall Street.

But one shouldn't blame Clinton either. He, like many others, knew no different. Americans were just ignorant at that time; investing more or less in intangibles like the internet and other forms of (firstly) unnecessary and (secondly) soon-to-be ubiquitous technology.

Bush's problem is more finite. He either doesn't want to lose face by declaring he has no clear objective with Iraq, or he believes intangibles such as "security" is enough for the voting public to swallow. He needs to be clearer, but because he isn't, it shows me that he and the Ad. aren't at all sure what they should do.

$87 billion, but to do what with? I'd like to know. "Security" isn't a definitive enough answer for me.

Um, actually the other major companies that had the capability to handle the task did "cry foul", at least among those in the industry. Most are just smart enough not to say it too loudly, as they are ALL affiliated with Haliburton (usually getting "sloppy seconds") in some way. The US LEADER in oilfield fire containment, Wild Well Control (Red Adair's former company) was one of the "shafted". You just won't hear them say anything because Haliburton actually SUB-contracted them to do a large chunk of the work. So why should they have been at least CONSIDERED as the primary? Since they were instrumental in the (swift) capping of Kuwaiti oil fires back in Desert Storm, that's why.

Oh, and please don't associate me with other extreme leftists here. I am about as middle-of-the-road as they come. I just call bull$hit when I see it (on BOTH sides).

Sigh... This is why I have stayed clear of these political threads. It brings out the near-sighted left AND right wing freaky-freaky extremists. You guys that are sooo defensive and loyal to your "team" are the big problem IMHO. Take off the blinders and see the big picture.

Well, we haven't started burning down iraqi villiages in masse or summarily exectuing iraqis just yet but kidnap and torture are a hell of a start.

And just in case you don't remember, when the puppet state we helped create and 'advise' didn't suit us well enough we assinated the president of that 'democratic' country.

jin·go·ism n.
Extreme nationalism characterized especially by a belligerent foreign policy; chauvinistic patriotism.

As I said when it comes to their educational system of puplic and private schools for men and women alike, especially for those who can afford it iraq was very much like the US.

Well, unless our current regime can get congress and the UN to rubber stamp such an action it would be illlegal to attack any of iraq's neighbors, but just like with Nixon and Cambodia Bush doesn't have to let a little illegality stop him from doing what he wants.

I think you need to invest in a dictionary or use the following site more often; http://dictionary.reference.com/search

re·gime n.
A form of government
A government in power; administration
A prevailing social system or pattern.
The period during which a particular administration or system prevails.
A regulated system, as of diet and exercise; a regimen.

There are several neighborhoods I can drop you off right here in Tampa where I am sure you couldn't even walk even a couple blocks without meeting several people who you would like to deprive you of your rights.

Once again, you need to invest in a dictionary or maybe learn about little about other countries on one of our own government's web sites. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/is.html

Zi·on·ism n.
A Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel.

At least people who were not opposed his regime didn't have to worry about being persecuted. Here in the US we just create things like black lists and boycots to destroy people who oppose the US regime instead of just throwing them in the chipper like Saddam would.

Hah, how about you list some of Teddys accomplishments on civil rights and I will agree that while setting up some nice hunting reserves he did help to preserve a lot of great real estate. I could care less if he was republican or democrat but I am more concerned with the attrocities committed under his command during the Spanish American war and the many other military 'interventions' he instigated as president of the US.

Once again your complete lack of knowledge of the subject you want to be so opinionated about is sad, really sad. If you care to learn, here is a place to start.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/2002/0923monster.htm

http://www.twf.org/News/Y1998/IraqLott.html

Actually, Pol Pot like much of the misery in the area was a direct result of the US actions in Cambodia. Once again I suggest that you read up on the rise of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge.

You will find that experts agree that the rise of Pol Pot was directly tied to the destabilizing effect of the overt and covert wars the US was waging in the area had on cambodia.

Hmmm, to quote you first source there:
"America did not put Saddam in power. He emerged after two decades of turmoil in the '60s and '70s"

heh-heh . . maybe you should read those "sources" yourself.
lol; especially when your riding the high and mighty "oh you're so sad"-horse. (read: I think Pete is not the sad-sap here)

Also, "Emerged" certainly is a euphemistic way of describing Saddams bloody coup.

Also2, getting blacklisted is the equivalent of being thrown in a woodchipper!?
. . . um. .just a point of clarification; a "woodchipper" is not the same as "chipper wood" one is sad, the other is . . um . .HAPPY

. . .you may now resume bickering.

Bottom line: When interest groups support both political parties canidates with money at the same time...Democracy loses...

I am generally a Bush Supporter...I think he was a better choich than Al Gore...certainly a better choich in light of 911. Look at the choichs of people in positions of responsibility in his Administration...even if you don't like their personal politics you have to admit they have experience and are tough cookies (Colin Powell, D Rumsfield, Condeleza Rice). Who would Al Gore have as Secratary of State Warren Christopher? I think ole GW has done a remarkable job in his handling of American Foreign Policy...not that he hasn't made blunders...stupid mistakes if you will....but here is the key...HE HAS BEEN ABLE TO CORRECT HIS COURSE ONCE IT BECOMES OBVIOUS A POLICY ISN'T WORKING... Many of the previous holders of his office havn't been able to do that.... Hoover, LBJ to name 2 in the 20th century that have been in perlious times for the US.

Another player no one here even takes in account here is the Federal Bureaucracy... Federal Bureaucracy is practically immune to Executive or Congressional Policy...it takes 6 months to a year for Policy to be implemented.

I tend to believe that no matter who the President is the Federal Bureaucracy would be dictating policy to the President. After 911 the Join Chiefs of Staff, Secrataries of Defense, State, Treasury, Directors of the FBI, CIA, NSA would have come to ANY sitting President and said it is our varied consenus that this is what needs to be done to preserve the integrity of the US. If you don't do this your...we're cooked. In that sense the President has no choich but to act... or suffer the wrath of the Bureaucracy which can amount to as little as not being able to get TP to the White House to out right elimination JFK style.

Well, the MSNBC piece ignores the details of the coup that brought Saddam to power, which is the reason why I include the link to a few factoids concerning the CIA engineered middle eastern coups.

Perhaps you should read my sources before you criticise.

You might have also missed how the first article was titled 'How the US Helped Create Saddam Hussein'.

If it makes you feel better perhaps you could look at it as if the CIA first holding a 'recall election' for Kassim and then 'voting' for Saddam to fill his spot.

My dog says you're FOS!! :mad:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1063078165.jpg

All of us? ;)

I think so . . .unless you just got back from a colonoscopy.

Dang, smart dog. . .maybe you should be sitting in his(?) lap.